He means that the argument of tradition that it means contrary to how it is almost always used does not make it true.
This has no logic behind it, sorry. Our faith is not on a Darwinian timeline - that is fatal to it.
Actually the Catholic faith is very much a Darwinian timeline, a faith that progressively developed distinctives that are simply not seen in the NT church , and which development tradition testifies to.
The insistence that Mary is just another woman and had a family had no basis until people just read translations and ignored thoughtful and comprehensive scholarship. Nonsense. Its based does not depend upon translations, and as shown, ECFs disagreed on Perpetual Marian Virginity (PMV), which thoughtful and comprehensive scholarship testifies to.
For one, the esteemed *by Catholics) J.N.D. Kelly finds that Basil stated that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495). And insomuch as modern scholarship and its sources became widely known and available then Cath propaganda became exposed for what it is.
Just one example, there same word is used to reference Herod’s “brothers” in translations
A valid point, but your problem is that of justifying an exception to the norm, in language, in the Scriptural description of marriage, and the characteristic mention of such exceptions to the norm by the Holy Spirit, all of which at the least is necessary for PMV to be a required belief. Which certainly is not evident in the NT church.
. In and of itself, it does not matter much to me otherwise, but reading into Scripture a doctrine that is there, does.
Anyway, God Bless and remember “All generation will call me blessed.”
Indeed, since this is recorded in Scripture of this holy women of faith and the Spirit.
We all know there are no wasted words in the Gospels! Indeed, including that we are not to think of mortals above that which is written, (1Co. 4:6) and not simply to prevent division, yet the larger problem with PMV is that it is part of the hyper exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism far far above that which is written .
Sorry, simply saying Tradition is not always correct avoids the obvious problem that simply reading an English translation and claiming it must me true because one read it is not a good argument. And to think that one with such a position has the hubris to say that opponents are akin to thinking the world is flat etc is pure hutzpah.
Second point is just incorrect, Oriegen and Irnious both strongly supported the perpetual virginity of Mary. It’s not a close call. Whether you have prejudice against the Catholic Church and its doctrines is irrelevant, to say a translation that clearly has multiple meanings has in fact one meaning (Mary had multiple children) is just weak. Moreover, taking it back to theology, I strongly believe the efforts to turn Mary into “just another believer” continues to erode the belief in the incarnation itself. If you want to believe the miraculous, you MUST believe the impossible. Best,