Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hi Jaded,

Since you are offering to keep people in your prayer intentions during lent, can I ask you to keep me in your prayers as well?

[SoothingDave]

Gen 14:12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Lot is Abram's nephew. Abram's brother is Haran. Haran is Lot's father. This is made explicit in verse 12.

Two verses later, Lot is called Abram's "brother."

Clearly the idea that "brother" among the Semitic peoples can only mean male siblings from the same uterus is wrong.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Lot is Abram's nephew. Abram's brother is Haran. Haran is Lot's father. This is made explicit in verse 12. Two verses later, Lot is called Abram's "brother." Clearly the idea that "brother" among the Semitic peoples can only mean male siblings from the same uterus is

I'm sorry, i don't do sola scriptura. :-)

[annalex]

Very informative post, thank you.

This is a good resource for further study: The Brethren of the Lord

[Titanites]

1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

You are quite skilful at selectively snipping bits of scripture out of context. Read the whole chapter.

First off, you avoid quoting the very next verse where Paul says “But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.” He nowhere states it is a sin to not come together. That is your assumption.

Next, the limit “for a time” is not defined. Is it weeks, months, years? We know that Mary and Joseph did not come together for at least 9-months because of the virgin birth. Did that break Paul’s “concession”? I doubt it, because the key phrase of the verse is come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency (or self-control per other translations). We know that Mary and Joseph stayed apart for at least 9-months, so we know they had self-control. It is quite possible they maintained self-control after His birth. Scripture doesn’t say one way or the other.

In any case to say Mary and Joseph would sin by violating Paul’s concession is absolutely wrong and figment of your imagination.

[annalex]

The absolute commandment is to be fruitful, which Joseph and Mary were in the most glorious fashion in bringing us the Savior. In many instances the Church allows for complete abstinence in marriage, when the fruit of the marriage is either already present or impossible. That is called Josephine marriage and is perfectly valid. An example would be a couple wishing to join monastic orders.

The commandment of submission to the husband remains valid, of course, but Mary would have violated it only if Joseph had asked her physical affection, of which we have no record.

In any event, the uniquely exceptional nature of the Holy Family renders all attempts to find a legalistic fault in them stupid and vaguely blasphemous.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Full Court,

You made an interesting quote from Scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:9 "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

My translation actually reads a little differently. "Neither was the man created from the woman; but the woman from the man." This being, of course, a reference to Adam and Eve and reflecting that man and woman are created in such a way that the they are made to become, "one flesh," which God joins and man may not split assunder.

There are a lot of ideologies that would argue today that there is nothing essential about gender. Rather it is simply seen as an accident of chromosome shuffling during conception--an individual could have easily received the father's X as his Y. Gender is seen as a mere coin toss, and gender differences are seen as something that are created by society, and not something intrinsic to the individual. It follows directly from this view, that because gender is nonessential to the individual, we should be able to mix and match genders in "marriage."

In your post, you underscore a much more complex, and I think richer view of the relationship between women and men. God did not have to create gender, we could all have been hermaphrodites. but God instead choose to create us in His image--male and female. God made men and women for each other. Your view underscores that.

Where we must be careful, however, is that we are going to far if we claim that women are made for men, and not men made for women. Women and men are created for God, to share in His own blessed life. We cannot accept any view, however, which asserts that women are not equal to men in dignity (and I'm sure you didn't imply this was not the case,), nor can we somehow claim that men's experiences are normative for humans, with women being in some sense an appendage. Both men and women are created in the image of God.


"For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God." (1 Cor: 12)

[annalex]

No, verse 9 has "for"; "from" (or "of") is in verse 8.

8 ou gar estin aner ek gyneaikos alla gyne ex andros
9 kai gar ouk ektisthe aner dia ten gynaika alla gyne dia ton andra

8 Non enim vir ex muliere est, sed mulier ex viro.
9 Etenim non est creatus vir propter mulierem, sed mulier propter virum.

(1 Corinthians 11)

Woma is for the man because, like Eve, she is from the man. The instruction to husband is to love the wife, sanctify and cleanse her, and sacrifice himself for her, as given in Ephesians 5.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Woman is for the man because, like Eve, she is from the man. The instruction to husband is to love the wife, sanctify and cleanse her, and sacrifice himself for her, as given in Ephesians 5."

Excellent! Thanks for calling that to my attention, it makes a lot more sense. I tend to read Paul's instruction to wives: "submit to your husbands," as saying, "don't hamstring the guy, you need to be on his side and for him, not against him." I do that because we are elsewhere told to submit to each other, so I don't see St. Paul singling out wives so much as emphasizing a common point of difficulty in many marital relationships. In my opinion, St. Paul is pointing to the difficulties that men and women often have in their relationships as husbands and wives. Husbands are to respect their wives as their own bodies and sacrifice for them: that is, they are not supposed to hate their wives, so we see a condemnation of misogyny. On the other hand, women need to be on their husbands side. At least that's how I usually interpret St. Paul on gender. It's all a development on the theme of "Love one another as I have loved you."

Thank you also for the link, Annalex!

[Uri’el-2012]

Not really. I was just waiting for your very imaginative "Catholic Dictionary" explanation that Unum Sanctum doesn't mean what it says.

Fr. Feeney would be proud.

[OLD REGGIE]

"First off, you avoid quoting the very next verse where Paul says “But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.” ..."

It is refreshing that you recognize Paul frequently speaks for himself and himself only. Please advise some of your compatriots that I am not a bitter "ex" or anything like that when I say that not all of Paul's writings are "Commandments of God".

[OLD REGGIE]

Fr. Feeney would be proud.

Gee, I wonder whether it would be possible to "Recomminucate Father Feeney? :-)

[annalex]

Possible, and done. The ex-communication of Fr. Feeney was lifted by Pope Paul VI in 1972.

[OLD REGGIE]

Possible, and done. The ex-communication of Fr. Feeney was lifted by Pope Paul VI in 1972.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. That is, I wasn't currently aware of that. If I had been so at some time in the past my memory lapse may be blamed on old age and semi-senility. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Fr. Feeney would be proud.

Gee, I wonder whether it would be possible to "Recomminucate Father Feeney? :-)

You'd be surprised how many people I think have invincible mental impediments.

SD

[Full Court]

The absolute commandment is to be fruitful, which Joseph and Mary were in the most glorious fashion

Joseph had nothing to do with that union.

His fruitful union with Mary Came later.

Matthew 1:24  

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[Full Court]

Excuse me NYER, but Jaded claimed I said something I did not, and I find that to be dishonest. So don't post moral platitudes to ME, when it was Jaded that made the false claim.

[Full Court]

I admire your zeal and passion for religion, that is a tremendous gift.

It's not for "relegion." It's for the Lord Jesus Christ against a bunch of catholics who would rather call Jesus a sinner than admit that the Word of God clearly shows that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters.

When God wants to use the word "cousin" He does.

There is no reason given in any of Scripture that Mary was not a good wife and that she did not have sex with Joseph.

[Full Court]

Clearly the idea that "brother" among the Semitic peoples can only mean male siblings from the same uterus is wrong.

God uses the word cousin when He means cousin.

The idea that Mary was a sinful wife and refused to have sex with Joseph is what is not in Scripture.

Why you insist in ignoring God's word in favor or a silly tradition just proves that you don't believe what God says.

Dave, your soul is in great peril.

[annalex]

Marriage is fruitful even when no biological offspring is produced. Joseph's marriage was validated, and, in fact, glorified, by his care of Our Lady and child Jesus.