Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
We know very well the brothers of Jesus didn't believe in him while he was alive!
1Corinthians 15:
[1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
[2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.
[3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
[4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
[5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Did the twelve include Peter?
[6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
[7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Name the Apostles. Are they the same ones referenced in verse 5?
[8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
How many Apostles do you count now?
Busy huh?
My point is that it's a rather large leap from this which we have evidence for ... to the presumption that scripture has somehow been twisted (or obliterated) beyond recognition.
Well, that is a giant leap from anything I have ever said. I have stated many times (at least a few times :)) that our present day Bible(s) while not perfect are good enough to live by. Any "errors" are inconsequential.
My reply ... in that post ... was to Restornu.
It is standard LDS teaching that the Bible is untrustworthy because ... 'well, ... who knows what could have happened to it in 2000 years ?'
My view on this is very similar to what you state.
That sounds eerily like what it must have been like for those people not wanting to disbelive a millennia of Nimrod's or Tower of Babel descendants as they banged on the door of the Ark. :-)
Why is it difficult to imagine that I have come to this decision freely and of my own volition? If those engaged in the "plain English" method of interpretation had any type of response to my many detailed expositions of Scripture, I might consider other ideas. As long as they ignore inconvenient evidence and refuse to make any type of logical response, I will stay on the side that has Tradition, Scripture and logic working for it.
SD
I didn't expect it to. After all, you surrendered your intellect some time ago. You are a one way street.
I admit when I am not receiving communication clearly. If you choose to castigate me for this rather than explain yourself, you only reveal your own limitations.
SD
Did Paul come along before or after the crucifiction? Was Paul an Apostle?
How is this relevant to my post about the various James and who their parents are? Can you respond to it, or do you need to join the deflectors league?
There are two Jameses identified in Scripture as "brothers" of Jesus and neither one of them have Joseph for a father.
How this can go un-responded-to is a mystery.
What other James is found in Scripture that is the blood half-brother, out of Mary's womb and Joseph's seed, of Jesus?
SD
Godd thing you are trying. In 1633 I explain that "Until" is but one possible translation for "eos". Another translation we frequently see is "till" or even "even to the time that". See, for example, Matthew 27:8 "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day". This is why there is nothing in Matthew 1:25 to indicate anything about Joseph and Mary after the birth of Christ.
Try reading Matthew 1:24 and 1:25 in context. Its very illuminating.
More accurately I am saying that when a privately arrived at understanding is at odds with the meaning that the Church has held for 2000 years, then the person with that inorthodox opinion has the onus to explain why the Fathers of the Church missed his meaning. Mos tlikely, the error is on the private interpreter, who reads the bible in a translation, often a very bad one, in the context of a very different culture. As we have seen, even very plain words, such as "brothers" did not have the same meaning then.
Of course we don't have to run to the Catechisis or to St. Chrysostom, or to the writings of the Popes, or to the councilar documents each time you read the scripture. Nobody does. About 80% of the Scripture is very clear to a casual reader. But not 100%. In order to read the scripture and profit from it spiritually one has to absorb the Holy Tradition at the same time. Then he can read for wisdom and pleasure and grow in faith with it.
You used to defend the "plain English" meaning of these verses until you decided to reject the entire idea of the Virgin Birth. So how illuminating was it really?
SD
". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down"
(Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 14; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis not in original)
==============================
This Church Council certainly read it from Scripture - Here!
Very.
Are you playing games, looking for the exact words?
No, I've identified two Jameses in Scripture, neither one of which has Joseph for a father. What is so hard about answering which James is supposed to be Jesus's half-brother through the union of Joseph and Mary?
Bringing in non-canonical documents is pointless at this point. We're still establishing what "brother" means or does not mean. One thing at a time.
SD>{?
So would I. I am not a historian (I am a computer engineer). But the difference between Scripture and Tradition is precisely that Tradition is self-correcting, while Scripture is not. If I need to understand the passage I suspect is not self-evident, I can read the Catechism or talk to a priest, till that process brings a better understanding. Usually, a reference to the early Church writings closes the deal, if the Catechism is silent. That way, the meaning of a particular verse, say, Matthew 1:25 or Luke 1:28, is understood not through some archaeological analysis of surviving copies, but by evidence of understanding common to the Fathers.
What I gave n 1633 is facts. If you follow the online concordance like I did, you can form your own opinion. If you draw a different conclusion, please explain why.
It is fine to restate the verses, but the issue is not what the text of the verses is, but what they mean. For that one needs a histirical and linguistic analysis, if one is unwilling to listen to the traditional interpretation.
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.