Lol! Everything else. But on this one point, you agreed.

Sounds like it might be time to start another conversation.

But you didn't disagree with me.

You've gotten me pretty confused now. I seem to recall disagreeing with you about something. What was it?

You apparently assume that I have not read it.

Not at all.

The fact that I disagree with you about what it says is not evidence to the contrary.

But you didn't disagree with me. You said:

As a whole, it does say that.

With reference to:

....the New Testament witnesses that Jesus Christ gave His Apostles tremendous miraculous abilities

Which I had shown by the use of a prooftext.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I had a choice. Produce the entire bible and ask you to read it. Or offer a verse from the bible to prove that the Bible does indeed teach this lesson.

You apparently assume that I have not read it. The fact that I disagree with you about what it says is not evidence to the contrary.

No, I'm not admitting that.

So, why does it matter that you intended it as hyperbole?

And, on what are you basing your opinion that the Catholic Church is not recognizable as the continuation of the Jewish religion? With which Jewish religion are you familiar?

The gospels say that the apostles were disciples. It does not follow that the authors thought all disciples were apostles.

Agreed. But who said that all disciples were apostles?

You canprooftext anything. ....

But we aren't talking about anything. We're talking about this one thing which you agreed:

As a whole, it does say that.

So, in order to show that this is true, do I need to produce the whole? Or can I simply show evidence that it is true by producing certain texts which show it more clearly?

You're the one who offered that verse, piecemeal and without context, to prove a point. I merely noted that that verse, by itself, does not actually prove that point.

I had a choice. Produce the entire bible and ask you to read it. Or offer a verse from the bible to prove that the Bible does indeed teach this lesson. Which do you think the more reasonable course?

I intended the phrase "beyond recognition" as hyperbole.

Soooo...what? Are you admitting that in the Catholic Church, you do recognize the continuation of the Jewish religion?

No, I'm not admitting that.

Do you have an opinion on how to prove an interpretation, reasonable?

I don't have an algorithm for it.

Do you feel that you can have the competence to make a judgment on which is more reasonable to you?

Reasonable to me? Yes, I think I'm competent to make that judgment.

I do not assume that whoever wrote it would have equated discipleship with apostleship.

Are you saying that the Apostles of Christ are not also disciples of Christ?

The gospels say that the apostles were disciples. It does not follow that the authors thought all disciples were apostles.

As a whole, it does say that.

Is that an admission that we can produce prooftexts which prove the message of Scripture as a whole?

You canprooftext anything. The specific problem with prooftexting is that it ignores the whole document to make a part of it say whatever the prooftexter wants to make the author seem to say.

If we read the Bible piecemeal, taking each verse out of context of the overall message, then, that is the conclusion to which many have arrived.

You're the one who offered that verse, piecemeal and without context, to prove a point. I merely noted that that verse, by itself, does not actually prove that point.

You quoted Hebrews. The author of Hebrews didn't claim to have been taught anything by Jesus.

Based upon Sacred Tradition and the writings of the Early Church Fathers, I believe the author of Hebrews is St. Paul of Tarsus. And he said to the Galatians:

Chapter 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I intended the phrase "beyond recognition" as hyperbole.

Soooo...what? Are you admitting that in the Catholic Church, you do recognize the continuation of the Jewish religion?

I have no good reason to think any apostle wrote Matthew.

You don't. But I do. I have several, but I'll stick to these two.

1. It is taught by the Catholic Church.

2. It can be derived from the Scriptures.

And I do not assume that whoever wrote it would have equated discipleship with apostleship.

Are you saying that the Apostles of Christ are not also disciples of Christ? Or is there some specific complaint to something which St. Matthew said in Scripture?

Or to something which we said. For instance, perhaps you've already noticed that I refer to St. Luke as an Apostle? Yet, technically, he is only a disciple of Jesus Christ. However, both terms are correct.

So, please clarify what you mean.

As a whole, it does say that.

Is that an admission that we can produce prooftexts which prove the message of Scripture as a whole?

That is your interpretation of what it says.

Ok.

I don't know how to prove an interpretation wrong,

Do you have an opinion on how to prove an interpretation, reasonable?

but I didn't say it was. All I said was that others are possible. I have seen no demonstration that none of the others is reasonable.

Do you feel that you can have the competence to make a judgment on which is more reasonable to you?

Besides, the key phrase seems to be "pass on his commands." I see a vital distinction between (1) passing on Jesus' commands and (2) having authority to tell others what those commands meant or to require others to believe certain things about matters on which Jesus himself is not reported to have made any comment.

If we read the Bible piecemeal, taking each verse out of context of the overall message, then, that is the conclusion to which many have arrived.

However, we (i.e. Catholics) find that the same author which says, "teach all nations (Matt 28:19-20)" also says that the Church has disciplinary authority and can cast out those members who do not accept her Teaching. (i.e. treat them as heathen, Matt 18:17). We also find that the early Church took the authority of the Church seriously (Gal 1:8).

having authority to tell others what those commands meant or to require others to believe certain things about matters on which Jesus himself is not reported to have made any comment.

I didn't make a mistake copying this part of your message twice. The authority to require her disciples to believe is discussed above. The authority to delve more deeply into the Teachings of Jesus Christ is discussed below. Jesus told the Church:

JOHN 16:13 (KJ21)

13 However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come.

Notice that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into "all" truth. That does not mean that Jesus didn't already mention it. But much of what Jesus mentioned was undeveloped. For instance, the Teaching of the Holy Trinity, was fleshed out by the Church many centuries later based upon the kernel of truth which Jesus Christ provided by His Teaching and by His very presence.

Those who claimed to be taught by Him claimed that He came to fulfill the Old Religion and begin a new one:

You quoted Hebrews. The author of Hebrews didn't claim to have been taught anything by Jesus.

Most Jewish converts to Catholicism whom I've heard and read, say that the Catholic Church is remarkably like Judaism. They're surprised that we gather daily for prayer, that we pray the Psalms daily (i.e. the Liturgy of the hours), that we use incense and candles, that we offer sacrifice, etc. etc.

I intended the phrase "beyond recognition" as hyperbole.

if the Catholic Church is not the continuation of the Apostles, then who or what is?

I see no reason to assume any continuation was intended.

The Apostles who were taught by Jesus Christ said that He commanded them to make disciples until the end of the world.

I have no good reason to think any apostle wrote Matthew. And I do not assume that whoever wrote it would have equated discipleship with apostleship.

But even if you claim that you want to take the New Testament as a whole, the New Testament witnesses that Jesus Christ gave His Apostles tremendous miraculous abilities

As a whole, it does say that.

in order to show forth that He had passed on to them His authority and power and that the Apostles immediately began His ministry to heal and to pass on His Commands. That's not proof texting, it is throughout the whole New Testament. But correct me if I'm wrong.

That is your interpretation of what it says. I don't know how to prove an interpretation wrong, but I didn't say it was. All I said was that others are possible. I have seen no demonstration that none of the others is reasonable.

Besides, the key phrase seems to be "pass on his commands." I see a vital distinction between (1) passing on Jesus' commands and (2) having authority to tell others what those commands meant or to require others to believe certain things about matters on which Jesus himself is not reported to have made any comment.

I'd have to disagree. St. Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees, raised upon the knew of Gamaliel, seemed to have no problem understanding the Teaching literally. He said,

1 Corinthians 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

And again:

1 Corinthians 11:26-28Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

And finally,

Hebrews 10:29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

So, in my opinion, its evident from the Scriptures, that the entire Church had already understood the Doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist from Apostolic times.

1. I agree, the main issue does not concern what is written but what is meant. However, I do think a discussion of authenticity was necessary as this same argument; that there is lack of multiple attestation, is often used to discredit the authenticity of a number of biblical texts.

2. The way primacy was exercised at Vatican I was different to the way it was exercised in the first centuries of the Church. Benedict XVI said as much when he stated: "Rome cannot demand from the East regarding the primacy issue more than what has been expressed and applied during the first millennium." We cannot therefore expect the Christians of the first century to have put as much emphasis on texts pertaining to papal primacy as texts from Vatican I. This was my point in mentioning Papal infallibility at Vatican I.

3. Refer to my second point.