Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"Oh, no!
No!
Aah!"
Somehow I knew that would get a response -- I couldn't resist, so I fired it off. I'm still thinking. :-)
I did read it! But not until I caught up to it. When I wrote that post I didn't know about it yet. Can I get an excused absence? :)
That's okay. If you're embarrassed by #4, you can take it back. We'll just pretend it was all a joke.
And is Saint John of Damascus any more correct than saint Harley of Virginia?
I'll take your analogy. You're right, if I accepted this conditional offer, then I would have to trust you, since I have to perform first, and then hope you keep up your end. I have to believe both in your ability to pay and in your willingness to pay.
Transferring this over to the spiritual realm, how do the elect come to a decision about whether God is able or willing to let us into heaven? I would say that God graces His elect such that the decision becomes a no-brainer yet again. If a person does not believe that God is able or willing, then the person clearly does not know God or does not have enough information to make a judgment. The ultimate decision: believe = eternal life vs. don't believe = eternal damnation, is still a no-brainer to anyone with the facts. These facts can only come from God through grace.
In addition, if we are framing this as a conditional promise, with the human having to perform first in order to receive the reward, how is this not earning our salvation? The new element to this old argument is that people have to perform FIRST before God gives us anything, i.e., the keys to a mansion.
Saul certainly did not have to be converted from wickedness. He tells us that HE HIMSELF was "perfect in the Law".
Was Saul "perfect in the law" when he did this? :
Acts 7:59-8:3 : 59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep. [8] 1 And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
Were the Jews "perfect in the law" when they demanded the death of Christ?
[On whether satan twisted scripture or misquoted it:] Regarding Satan - he is still using the Scriptures against Jesus. One can take Scriptures and twist it, whether we twist the words or the meaning - it's the same thing...I fail to see your distinction.
To me, it is an extremely important distinction. You and I can have friendly disagreements about the interpretations of scripture, and, I would guess, maybe 90% of the time we would both agree with the text of the scripture, even if we are using different Bibles. Even if the words are arranged a little differently, we would still agree on the basic text. We would just disagree as to meaning.
However, if one of us used a "Bible" that was misquoted throughout as in the examples I gave of satan misquoting, then we would never even get to a debate, there would be no point of reference. If one of us believed in such a book, then that one could not possibly even be a Christian under any circumstances. In American law, intentional misquoting (lying, fraud) is much worse than misinterpretation (mistake, human error).
I went into detail about it in my last post because you challenged the correctness of my assertion. :) I wanted to make the point that what satan does to scripture is much much worse and much more dangerous than simply disagreeing with an interpretation. satan changes the point of reference so that no one can reach the truth. That is, without God doing something about it.
JK: "I wrote :God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world."
FK: "So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this."
JK: "Hardly. Slow down a second. Is God righteous or not? IF He is, then HE binds Himself to promises made. IF He is righteous, He does not break promises. Thus, where is this "man-created" duty? GOD gave us His promise!"
God is righteous. God binds Himself to promises made. God does not break His promises. So far, so good. But WHAT IS THE PROMISE HERE? The man-created duty I am talking about is your invention of a promise. God never says "I promise to save all men". He makes a non-decreed wish, not a promise. You are extracting a promise from a wish. You can't do that with God, right? :) Also, think of God's foreknowledge. He already knows all will not be saved, yet He says He wishes all to be saved. Doesn't that relieve Him of the promise you have put on Him? He already knows, so why would He promise to make a vain effort?
[On FK's argument that man's justice and God's justice are completely different:] When we define God's attributes, we use words to define the meaning of "justice". There is an implied meaning to those letters put together to spell "justice"...There is a concept. And expecting someone to do something he cannot is NOT part of that concept! That is injustice in ANYONE'S definition. To you, then, God should be called "unjust", using human definition.
No, I would never apply a human standard to God's justice. His justice is perfect, man's is not. I've got witnesses. :) Consider:
Zep. 3:4-5 : 4 Her [Jerusalem] prophets are arrogant; they are treacherous men. Her priests profane the sanctuary and do violence to the law. 5 The LORD within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame.
The Lord dispenses His justice morning by morning and He never fails. The unrighteous know no shame, and so do not practice justice as God does. Now, what about the righteous? Well, they are with God, right? Therefore, they do not hold to a justice that is apart from God's, they accept God's. So, the righteous do not believe in man's sense of justice, they believe in God's. Therefore, if anything can be called "man's justice" then it is the imperfect justice of the unrighteous. The two are very different.
God does not expect anyone to do what he cannot. He does not expect that everyone will be saved, either. This is just.
When we say that "God's ways are not our ways", it doesn't mean that God defines justice differently! It means His EXTENT of justice is different. He GOES BEYOND our definition - NOT FALL SHORT! He gives mercy to those who we do not believe deserve it. You think God is LESS than humanly just? That is exactly what you are saying. God does not even live up to human justice. Wow... Where do Protestants come up with this stuff?
With all due respect, I think it sure does mean that God defines justice differently. How could He not? Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right? Therefore, a different sense of justice is perfectly appropriate. One is subject to only perfection, and the other to human failings. In our sense of justice we build in all sorts of things to compensate for these failings. God doesn't need any of that. The systems are different.
I have no idea where you get that I think that God is less than humanly just. But in a sense, I have to admit that's true. God falls short of mistake, sin and corruption. Man's justice is full of those things. So, you have a point. :)
You spoke of God extending our sense of justice but not falling short of it. How is your human sense of justice satisfied with the Great Flood? Did anyone get a trial? What law was given to the people that they should not break? By man's standards, didn't God really make a "rush to judgment" here? In fact, God is really guilty of genocide by man's standards, isn't He? This isn't God extending man's justice, this is breaking it wide open. God's justice is not man's justice.
I pinged everyone mainly to see if anyone wanted in on the God's justice vs. man's justice issue, as well as the other law-related issues. These really interest me. I'll cut this here and move to the other issues in the next post.
It's the Catholics who tell me that no one knows if they will persevere until the end. Yet you turn right around and say that Mary made a vow to God and knew that she would keep it for the rest of her days. How can that be if no one knows they will persevere? (I'm pinging jokus and forest keeper to this because I believe they were involve it this discussion as well.)
If such is the case as you suppose, and fitting in with the Catholic teaching that NO ONE knows if they will persevere, the natural question for Mary would have been, "...but I am a virgin, does this mean that I will break my vows?" Mary should have questioned her own commitment. It would have been persumptious and arrogant for her to say, "How can this be since I made a vow to God?"
Mary knew that she, by herself, would bring forth a child simply because the angel told her.
Well, well. I guess we don't have "free will" after all. ;O)
This is precisely what I stated in post #5705:
I can explain it. You just don't like my explanation.
I think the answer is obvious. He has sufficiently refuted the idea that the passage you and others are so fond of parading around as proof of sex actually proves nothing of the sort. And more to the point, he did it with ease. So, when you say we will have a difficult time with Matt.1:25, I can honestly say this:
"No, not really."
I don't think there is such a thing as a "no-brainer" in the spiritual world. Having faith and trust in an unseen person presents a life-long battle in building a relationship. God graces us, but we must continue to persevere - this is NOT a "no-brainer".
The ultimate decision: believe = eternal life vs. don't believe = eternal damnation, is still a no-brainer to anyone with the facts. These facts can only come from God through grace.
But they do not come to us intuitively, but through our senses. This information comes through other people - we ultimately trust the message that we have received from others is truly from God. We trust that God is somehow related in our personal lives. If God came to us in the form of a personal revelation, sure, we'd have a no-brainer. But for most of us, we base our relationship on faith - on the belief that what we have been told is true.
In addition, if we are framing this as a conditional promise, with the human having to perform first in order to receive the reward, how is this not earning our salvation?
That's the way the analogy goes, but that part fails to fully sum up what happens between us and God. From our point of view, it might appear we are earning salvation - but we realize God is giving us the ability to obey Him. Thus, when we obey Him, it seems as if we are earning something or meriting something - although it is God who gives us every good gift. Also, we are speaking about God who foresees what we will do.
Was Saul "perfect in the law" when he did this? :
I am only relating what Paul says of himself, sorry if you disapprove:
"If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Phil 3:5-6
The OT is full of stories of men who killed in the name of God and were considered righteous.
In American law, intentional misquoting (lying, fraud) is much worse than misinterpretation (mistake, human error).
Intentionally twisiting the meaning or the words yields the same results, does it not?
The man-created duty I am talking about is your invention of a promise. God never says "I promise to save all men". He makes a non-decreed wish, not a promise. You are extracting a promise from a wish.
That is true - and something I never said! I didn't say that God promised that He will save all men! I agree that Hell exists and is currently occupied - so how could I believe that God will save all men? The Scriptures tell us that God DESIRES all men to be saved - thus, He has promised that He has made an effort to do that. But salvation is conditional. Not only is it dependent on God's graces, but it also depends on man's cooperation and response to these graces. God does His part - He DESIRES that we be saved - but He does not override our will. If we choose not to obey God, we suffer the consequences. God does not make empty efforts and desires known to us. He died for the sin of ALL men, something you CHOOSE to overlook.
Also, think of God's foreknowledge. He already knows all will not be saved, yet He says He wishes all to be saved. Doesn't that relieve Him of the promise you have put on Him? He already knows, so why would He promise to make a vain effort?
You are not familiar with the concept of love, apparently. God has gone to incredible depths to show us His love for us, even when we were in opposition to Him. God deeply desires us to turn to Him. God is just, however, and His nature demands that those who turn away from Him are punished. We don't see "God desires all men to be saved" as a phony desire of God's.
Therefore, if anything can be called "man's justice" then it is the imperfect justice of the unrighteous. The two are very different.
You are not getting my point. God's degree of justice differs, but the definition is the same. God's justice EXCEEDS our justice! When man believes that someone should be punished, God's justice differs. For example, consider the parable of the workers in the field all day. Throughout the day, the manager brought in new labourers. When it came time to pay, each received the same amount - even the ones who were there for one hour. Man's justice would say that there would be a sliding wage, or that each man should receive proportionate wages. God's justice says He will reward everyone how HE sees fit - AND IT EXCEEDS OUR IDEA OF JUSTICE! NEVER can you say that God's justice does not even meet man's justice! This is ridiculous. And that is what you are saying. Which human would call a person just for condemning someone for not being able to do something that they have NO ability to accomplish? Which person would consider another just for condemning a cripple because he couldn't run a marathon??? God does not condemn people for not being able to do good if He doensn't grace them. Thus, God gives ALL men grace to obey Him, God has died for all men, AND God is just that His justice EXCEEDS man's idea of justice.
God does not expect anyone to do what he cannot. He does not expect that everyone will be saved, either. This is just.
You give with one hand and take away with the other! Your version of Protestantism says one thing and believes the opposite. HOW can God expect a man to obey His commandments if God only gives graces to the elect??? You have a twisted idea of justice!
Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right?
Why would you say that? What leads you to believe that? In both cases, the judge has authority over the judged. Of course, in God's case, He has ULTIMATE authority, but the concept is similar.
Therefore, a different sense of justice is perfectly appropriate
Why? One of the fundamental axioms of theology is that the supernatural parallels the natural. We don't expect a different "definition" of "Goodness" in the natural world than the supernatural! Good is Good! It is a manner of degrees. Thus, murder is not "good" in heaven. Sickness is not "good" in heaven. Nor is DEMANDING the impossible "just" in heaven... This discussion is taking a turn towards the ridiculous. I do not see how a Calvinist can call God "just" when this "God" refuses to give men the ability to obey His commandments, while calling Himself "just". This is, quite frankly, BS. You can't have it both ways. Either God transcends our definition of justice - which means he exceeds our degrees of justice, or God is NOT just, and we should call Him something else. Definitions spell out the attributes of God. When we call Him "just", we have an idea in mind, not its opposite! If you believe that God acts the way you describe, let's call God something else, so we can readily identify what you mean.
You spoke of God extending our sense of justice but not falling short of it. How is your human sense of justice satisfied with the Great Flood? Did anyone get a trial? What law was given to the people that they should not break?
The Law written in their hearts - the natural law. Men KNOW what they do not want done to them. This serves as a universal law for all people. What we don't want done to us, we don't do to others. We don't know why God did what He did in all matters. But we trust that His judgment was fair. We don't believe God wiped out the world for no reason. And by the way, which one of us receives a trial from God before our death?
Regards
My will remains free - it is my intellect that depends on the Church's teachings... I can freely disregard what my intellect tells me as true if I choose not to believe the Church. This explains why Protestants refuse to come home. The intellect tells them the Church is true, but the will refuses to believe it is so.
Regards
Because it ignores other Scriptures.
Regards
Yes, of course! :) However, I must admit that I'm not even sure what a human standard of righteousness is. With justice, it's easy to tell the difference. ... Wow, I never knew you were that close to the border. I think it's ridiculous what you have to go through today, and what I'll have to go through tomorrow. What in the universe has happened to the Republican party on this issue? It makes me want to scream! :) Tell your Senator-who-wants-to-be-President not to count on my vote. :)
FK: "In the PRACTICAL world, I experience everything just as you believe is real. Intellectually, I know what is really going on, but I don't experience it, practically."
LOL! Read that last sentence again. Are you some sort of disembodied person, separated from your body? Perhaps your paradigm is incorrect? Are you living in the Matrix? Again, do you think God is "tricking" us?
Even though you disagree with what I am saying, I still think I am making a valid point. For example, after a long walk back to my car from shopping at the grocery store, I notice that the cashier gave me a ten in change when she should have given me a five. What should I do? As I sit in my car thinking for a moment, it begins to rain. :)
PRACTICALLY, I consider whether I am in a rush, have they ripped me off before, and WWJD, etc. This is only human. If I am a good boy, then I trudge back into the store to correct the error, and that is the end of it. INTELLECTUALLY, I would realize that it was God who moved me, by Himself and without anything from me, to go do the right thing. But this would not normally occur to me at the time. It would only if I went outside of the practical into the intellectual. This is what I meant.
The Church verifies its [the Bible] source because it witnessed the Christ. Unless you think they made the whole thing up. You, on the other hand, believe the Bible is God's word because...God's word is the bible because...the Bible is God's word...and the vicious circle continues...
I don't think the Church made up the Bible, I would never give it that much credit! :) I believe the Bible is God's word because God tells us so in His word. We simply disagree on the meaning of the scriptures I use to show this. But even aside from that, just from me personally, after I read the whole thing for the first time, I really could come to no other conclusion on any level. I could not, and cannot now, fathom any man or group of men possibly fabricating anything like it. Even if a fake of one of the books was possible, there is no way in my mind that man could possibly have come up with something so perfect throughout all 66 books and covering so much time, with so many different authors.
FK: "Whoever has the strongest argument based on the most salient scripture should be correct. I don't need a man to declare that for me."
That is not the smartest thing you have written over the course of our discussions (that is the nicest way I can say it).
Thank you for the kindness.
[continuing] So I guess man determines the revelation of God, now? Is Christianity a revealed religion, or a philosophical argument? You are basically giving credence to Relativism - every good opinion is as good as another. Every nut case with a bible can decide for himself the revelation of God?
No, man does not determine the revelation of God, unless he is in the Catholic hierarchy. Then those men determine it for you. You have said so. I believe that only God determines His revelation. One of the main ways He does that is through scripture. ... Christianity is a revealed faith, through scripture. ... I am not giving credence to relativism. In fact, if you even looked at my statement before you derided it, the one thing you can say about it is that it argues against relativism. "Salient" scripture is in both strength and numbers.
I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct; OR, is it better to have several independent churches, some of which are likely corrupt, but some of which are likely practicing the truth (at least some are saved).
Utterly corrupt? Please. The lengths Protestants go to villify the Church so as to assuage their guilty conscience on leaving or remaining outside the Church established by Christ.
AARRRRRGH! And the lengths I went to, to make sure you wouldn't take it this way. Que Lastima! :) If you follow our conversation, then you can see that everything before my semicolon and capitalized "OR" refers to the Catholic Church, and everything after refers to Protestants. In both cases, I give possibilities for error and correctness. You were LOOKING for the insult, but it was not there. :)
Explain the different creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2. They are not in the same order. Or did God create the universe twice in two different ways?
The second account was not simply a retelling of the first. Genesis 1 was an overview of the whole of creation, from God's perspective. Genesis 2 focused only on the creation story as it regarded Adam and Eve, a very different focus. Genesis 1 was more of an account that went by strict chronological order. Genesis 2 was more focused on how all this related to Adam and Eve. Here is a fairly short article that I mostly like that tackles this: Genesis contradictions? .
The best part of it is the conclusion:
"The final word on this matter, however, should really be given to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew chapter 19, verses 4 and 5, the Lord is addressing the subject of marriage, and says: ‘Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’
Notice how in the very same statement, Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 (verse 27b: ‘male and female created he them’) and Genesis 2 (verse 24: ‘Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh’). Obviously, by combining both in this way, He in no way regarded them as separate, contradictory accounts."
If Jesus is OK with it, then so am I. :)
First of all, we Catholics distinguish between ABSOLUTE knowledge and "MORAL" knowledge regarding our salvation. We can have a relatively strong sense of our salvation, but we are never absolutely certain - we cannot earn salvation and we are told to persevere until the end. WE! Not God! God EXPECTS US to persevere! We "know" with the graces given us, we can and will succeed. But we also know that there is the possibility of falling away. Even Paul says this of HIMSELF!
If such is the case as you suppose, and fitting in with the Catholic teaching that NO ONE knows if they will persevere, the natural question for Mary would have been, "...but I am a virgin, does this mean that I will break my vows?" Mary should have questioned her own commitment. It would have been persumptious and arrogant for her to say, "How can this be since I made a vow to God?"
We are talking about apples and oranges here. We are now speaking about keeping a vow, not about eternal salvation. But be that as it may, I think we can only speculate on such matters. I personally believe that Mary did not have a "guarantee" that she would do "x" or "y". That is not God's way. She was forced to "ponder in her heart". She had a "sword pierce her heart". She ALSO had to undergo suffering, pain, lack of knowledge and understanding of God's ways. I do not believe that Mary had supernatural knowledge of God's plan, although she certainly would know more humanly than anyone else, because she was around our Savior longer and was given the Angel's word on Whom he child was. But did she know that Jesus would be crucified? Did she "know" she would absolutely hold to her vow of virginity? I think she can be credited with persevering to the end due to her cooperation with God's gifts. I think the Orthodox will agree, as well.
To say what Mary "knew" is difficult to ascertain, so I wouldn't go very far here. From what we do know, I credit Mary as being the ultimate disciple of Christ, who pondered His Word in her heart for many years. She received the Spirit TWICE in a very special way. She was given singular graces and made pure - but whether she "KNEW" that she was Immaculately Conceived, I would not venture to guess.
Regards
LOL! Last summer, we had a truck load of illegals scream down the end of our cul-de-sac and stop in our neighbor's driveway and about 20 people came milling out of this old Nissan pickup with a camper shell while we were cutting our grass. The coyotes took off, the other people, families, really had nowhere to go. Border Patrol came and got them, as my neighbor told them to sit down - they had no clue where they were and were surrounded by walls (unlike back East, every yard is surrounded by a block wall!) It really is a sad situation, and I don't know the answer to it.
PRACTICALLY, I consider whether I am in a rush, have they ripped me off before, and WWJD, etc. This is only human. If I am a good boy, then I trudge back into the store to correct the error, and that is the end of it. INTELLECTUALLY, I would realize that it was God who moved me, by Himself and without anything from me, to go do the right thing. But this would not normally occur to me at the time. It would only if I went outside of the practical into the intellectual. This is what I meant.
I completely disagree that you have nothing to do with this decision! YOU DO have something to do - and it is upon THIS decision and many like it will we be judged, as Christ says in Matthew 25 in several parables. You intellect presents you with alternatives and your will decides based on this input. God moves our will based on the inputs we receive. Again, it is a free will choice. NO ONE makes you sit in the car and keep the money OR go back to the store. Your will has made the choice, in either direction, and is not compelled. In either case, your intellect is not some disembodied thing separate from your will. You ARE experiencing it!
I believe the Bible is God's word because God tells us so in His word.
The bible is God's Word because the Word of God is the Bible... The Word of God is the Bible because the Bible is the Word of God. Can't you see the circular argument here? You can't base a logical argument on such lack of logic.
Even if a fake of one of the books was possible, there is no way in my mind that man could possibly have come up with something so perfect throughout all 66 books and covering so much time, with so many different authors.
First of all, why COULDN'T one of the letters be fake? Paul considered the possibility in several of his letters! And the Bible is perfect? Not to the atheist or those who find contradictions in it. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If one is open to truth, they will see it. But God doesn't force His beauty upon anyone. By the way, you forgot 7 books!
I believe that only God determines His revelation.
Yes - but Protestants believe God gives "me" all this revelation completely and perfectly. If it disagrees with someone else, then THEY are wrong!
If you follow our conversation, then you can see that everything before my semicolon and capitalized "OR" refers to the Catholic Church, and everything after refers to Protestants. In both cases, I give possibilities for error and correctness. You were LOOKING for the insult, but it was not there. :)
Here is what you wrote:
I suppose it is a philosophical question of whether it is better to have only one Church, which might be corrupted utterly (in which case no one is saved), or which might be entirely correct
Explain exactly how the Church established by Christ, the pillar and foundation of truth, became "utterly corrupted"? That is the only excuse Protestants have for walking away from the Catholic Church - but how is it possible that God, who promised that the Gates of hell would not prevail - has fallen? The rock that Christ built His Church upon has fallen? Perhaps you should reconsider that promise that God made to you of being of the elect, if you consider God broke His promise to uphold the Church.
Genesis 2 focused only on the creation story as it regarded Adam and Eve
The order of creation is different. Read it more carefully. I realize the focus - but chronologically and scientifically, the two are faulty. It should be quite obvious that people realized this and determined that the two stories were NOT relating scientific knowledge?
If Jesus is OK with it, then so am I. :)
Jesus NEVER says anything (at least from Scriptures) about the historical creation as related in Genesis. He does not confirm or deny that EITHER story was literally correct.
Regards
2) Paul refers to our Lord Jesus' "bothers" (1 Cor 9:5),
3) our Lord Jesus minimizes Mary's role to the role of all believers (Matt 12), and
4) the term cousin (often used as an argue as to what is meant here) is used in Col 4:10.
I don't see how this helps your case, but ok.
I find this a very weak argument simply because there is no reason for Matthew to have included that clause.
Duly noted. And if Matthew were a 20th Century American, I might agree with you. But he wasn't. He was a first century Jew and this kind of phrase was quite normal back then. There are other places in Scripture where this word is used in the same way and St. John gives one such example. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. Perhaps we could return to this the next time the subject of using Scripture to interpret Scripture comes around.
Instead of:
"but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Matt 1:25
it should have read:
"but kept her a virgin and he called His name Jesus."
Again, if he were a 20th century American, maybe so.
This coupled with the fact that
1) our Lord Jesus' "brothers" are defined in scriptures (Matt 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3, Luk 8, John 7, etc),
...discussed and refuted ad nauseum...
2) Paul refers to our Lord Jesus' "bothers" (1 Cor 9:5),
... same as above...
3) our Lord Jesus minimizes Mary's role to the role of all believers (Matt 12), and
...right or wrong, it's irrelevant...
4) the term cousin (often used as an argue as to what is meant here) is used in Col 4:10.
Translators can be funny that way.
I think the scriptural evidence is a bit overwheming.
If by "overwhelming" you mean "frustratingly elusive", I would have to agree.
Hmmm...let's summarize
I'm glad you included the second possibility, that of the experiential, the mystics, the contemplatives. The equation is quite different. I think everyone strives to be a mystic in their own fashion - to experience and know God directly, personally, as a real presence, connected to our being, something more than an intellectual or reasoning faith in a separate, distant, though deep, concept.
I appreciate your posts.
"YOU WILL CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB..."
And where else would a girl who was going to start living with and "knowing" Joseph expect to conceive but in her womb? This adds nothing to your argument.
Knowing the Scriptures, she knew the account in Judges, where an angel appeared to Sampson's mother and announced to her that she would conceive a child (the angel repeats this "you will conceive" several times. The LXX even says that the angel told her that she would bring this child forth from her "womb." The angel never says anything to Sampson's mother about her husband -- he never once says in this encounter that she *and her husband* would conceive a child. The angel just says she will conceive.
Why wouldn't the Theotokos have taken this example from Scripture and assumed at first that the angel was making a similar announcement to her of an "ordinary" conception?
I'm afraid that unless I'm really missing something here, there is no way to categorically insist on your interpretation unless you come to this passage in St. Luke with a pre-conceived (no pun intended) notion about Mary's intentions in life.
Regarding the patristic commentaries, last night I happened to encounter something quite interesting in St. Theophylact's commentary (which is a 12th century distillation of patristic commentaries on the NT -- heavily based on St. John Chrysostom's commentaries -- very worth reading, and as close to a "standard" commentary as we have in Orthodoxy.)
In his commentary at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel, St. Theophylact is writing about Christ's final words of that Gospel:
"...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
He (a Greek speaker writing for others who read and wrote Greek) takes pains to explain that the word translated as "unto" -- the same one translated as "until" in 1:25 -- does not mean that Christ is only giving assurances to the disciples that he will only be with them to the end of the world. He clarifies that what happens beyond that is *not* unknown to us and that we can be assured of Christ being with us throughout eternity, even though that phrase of St. Matthew could be read precisely in a way that raises the question of the unknown.
He writes this, but does not mention the usage in 1:25. The significance of what I am pointing out is that the usage of this word in 28:20 is apparently such that he felt that it called for some clarification, *independent of its relationship to the usage in 1:25.* He was not saying this in order to prove anything about how 1:25 should be read.
Keep in mind that all of these commentaries were written prior to the Protestant Reformation -- at a time when there was no controversy within Christianity about the ever-virginity of the Theotokos.
And again, these Christian commentators spoke, wrote, thought, studied, debated, and preached in Biblical/liturgical Greek -- and they learned it from their teachers who learned it from their teachers... going back in continuity to the Biblical times in which those texts were written.
I'm reminded of the Watergate hearings, where someone testifying asked how this or that statement could be understood in such a way. The venerable Sam Ervin, with his inimicable Southern drawl replied, "because, son, I speak the English language -- it's mah Muther tongue."
Anyway, we don't need to beat this dead horse anymore, although I'm game (for awhile) to continue with the flogging. :-)
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.