Posted on 05/14/2010 11:03:45 AM PDT by NYer
Holy Scripture, despite all appearances, will not always be easy to interpret. We can be lulled into thinking our “common sense” and “by the letter” interpretation of a text is what God intends us to get out of it. However, if this is the case, there would be little to no debates about its meaning; there would be little confusion as to its purpose and how it applies to us today. St. Peter would not have needed to tell us that no prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted privately, because all interpretations of Scripture would end up the same. We need to understand and heed the warning of St. Mark the Ascetic: “Do not let your heart become conceited about your interpretations of Scripture, lest your intellect fall afoul for the spirit of blasphemy.” [1] Why would he be warning us of this? Because Scripture, in its most external, simplistic level, could easily lead people to a perverted understanding of God and the Christian faith.
For an interpretation of Scripture to be acceptable (which does not mean it is necessarily correct), it must at least conform to the basic dogmatic teachings of the Church. If God is love, this must be manifest from one’s understanding of Scripture. If one’s interpretation of a text would lead to God doing or commanding something which runs against the law of love, the law by which God himself acts, then one has indeed committed blasphemy. If one really believes God commands some intrinsic evil, such as genocide, one has abandoned the God who is love, and has at least committed unintentional blasphemy by something evil about him. One cannot get out of this by saying, “whatever God wills, is now good,” or that “the very nature of right and wrong has changed through time,” because both would contradict not only the fundamental character of love, but also the fact God has provided us a positive means by which we can understand something of him via analogy; we know what love is, we know what the good is, and therefore we know something about God when we see he is love or that he is good. While we must understand our concepts are limited in relation to God, it is not because God is less than our concepts, but more and their foundation. Thus, Pope Benedict wisely says:
In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[2]
Christianity affirms both the transcendence and immanence of God. The second allows us to say something positive and true about God, while the first reminds us that positive assertions are limited, that they are at best analogous pointers to something beyond the statements themselves. Our teachings truly say something about God. They must be used as the guideline by which we read Scripture. Moreover, as the Church makes abundantly clear, Scripture is itself an ecclesial document, to be interpreted in and by the Church. It must be interpreted in such a way that dogmatic teachings about God (such as his unchanging goodness) are in accord with our understanding of Scriptural text. If reason suggests a disconnect between an interpretation and dogma, we must follow dogma and dismiss the interpretation. Richard Gaillardetz explains this well:
The apostolic witness would be preserved both in the canonical Scriptures and in the ongoing paradosis or handing on of the apostolic faith in the Christian community. The unity of Scripture and tradition is grounded then in the one word whose presence in human history comes to its unsurpassable actualization in Jesus Christ. Scripture and tradition must be viewed as interrelated witnesses to that word. Furthermore, neither Scripture nor tradition can be separated from the Church. The unity of Scripture, tradition and the living communion of the Church itself is fundamental.[3]
Revelation, therefore, is centered upon Jesus Christ – and through Christ, the whole of the Holy Trinity:
The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy.[4]
If the vision of God that one gets out of Scripture is not one which reveals his justice and mercy, the reader of the text has missed something about the text itself. Perhaps the mistake lies in their interpretive scheme, where they assume the text follows the contours of modern historical writings. This is not the case; indeed Christians since the beginning of Church history have understood a very different scheme for the Biblical text: one which presents a kind of history but uses that history to present a deeper, more fundamental understanding of the world. Texts which are seen as impossible, if interpreted as history, nonetheless must be accepted, not because they are historical, but because they reveal something theological. St. Neilos the Ascetic, for example, takes 2 Samuel 4:5-8[5] as being historically absurd. This, he thinks, should be obvious. But if this is the case, does it make the text meaningless? By no means:
It is clear that this story in Scripture should not be taken literally. For how could a king have a woman as door-keeper, when he ought properly to be guarded by a troop of soldiers, and to have round him a large body of attendants? Or how could he be so poor as to use her to winnow the wheat? But improbable details are often included in a story because of the deeper truths they signify. Thus the intellect in each of us resides within like a king, while the reason acts as door-keeper of the senses. When the reason occupies itself with bodily things – and to winnow wheat is something bodily – he enemy without difficulty slips past unnoticed and slays the intellect.[6]
This scheme was in accord with what Origen taught. Indeed, he believed that the writers were inspired to put in statements which were absurd so as to remind us not to take the text so simply, but to look for the deeper, spiritual nourishment we can get from them, even for those texts which also have a real historical basis:
But since, if the usefulness of the legislation, and the sequence and beauty of the history, were universally evident of itself, we should not believe that any other thing could be understood in the Scriptures save what was obvious, the word of God has arranged that certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offenses, and impossibilities, should be introduced into the midst of the law and the history, in order that we may not, through being drawn away in all directions by the merely attractive nature of the language, either altogether fall away from the (true) doctrines, as learning nothing worthy of God, or, by not departing from the letter, come to the knowledge of nothing more divine. And this also we must know, that the principal aim being to announce the spiritual connection in those things that are done, and that ought to be done, where the Word found that things done according to the history could be adapted to these mystical senses, He made use of them, concealing from the multitude the deeper meaning; but where, in the narrative of the development of super-sensual things, there did not follow the performance of those certain events, which was already indicated by the mystical meaning, the Scripture interwove in the history (the account of) some event that did not take place, sometimes what could not have happened; sometimes what could, but did not. And sometimes a few words are interpolated which are not true in their literal acceptation, and sometimes a larger number.[7]
Scripture, of course, was written by various people. While they were inspired by God to write what they wrote, and God inspired the Church to collect the texts it did, in the form it did, we must also understand that the people behind the texts are not mere puppets being forced by God to write as they did. Thus, when patristic authors, or the Church, asserts God as the author of the text, we must not take this as fundamentalists do, but rather recognize that God works with authors based upon their ability and through their cooperation with his intended purposes: “The fathers look upon the Bible above all as the Book of God, the single work of a single author. This does not mean, however, that they reduce the human authors to nothing more than passive instruments; they are quite capable, also, of according to a particular book its own specific purpose.”[8] Indeed, God can inspires people to reveal something about him without their knowing of it, or knowing the meaning behind their words, as St Edith Stein masterfully explains:
Must the inspired person who is the instrument of a divine revelation be aware of the fact? Must he know that he has been illuminated, must he himself have received a revelation? We may well imagine cases where none of this is true. It is not impossible that someone utter a revelation without realizing it, without having received a revelation from God, without even being aware that he is speaking in God’s name or feeling supported by God’s Spirit in what he says and how he says it. He may think he is only voicing his own insight and in the words of his choosing.
Thus Caiphas says in the Sanhedrin : ‘You know nothing and do not consider that it is better for you that one man die for the people and not the whole people parish.’ And John adds: ‘but his he said not of himself but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the people…’ Hence Caiphas spoke in God’s name and followed divine instructions without either knowing it or wishing to do so. John, however, knows that Caiphas was speaking God’s word and perhaps that he was himself enlightened by God as he wrote this. Does John know the prophetic meaning of Caiphas’ words through a revelation accorded him? Quite possibly. But it may also be that the fulfillment of those words in the death of Jesus and John’s view of the overall work of salvation made him realize their prophetic nature.[9]
Now this is not to say it is the norm, nor common, but, as we see, a person inspired by God does not have to understand the meaning of their words, nor that they are actually saying something that will be collected together as being inspired by God. The intention of God as the inspired author of Scripture does not have to be one with the intended meaning of the human author, and indeed, could be one which runs contrary to what such a human might have thought (as, for example, we find in the case of Jonah).
Thus, it is important to discuss inspiration, but as the Pontifical Biblical Commission warns us, we must not follow the simplistic interpretation found within fundamentalism:
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.[10]
And, it is especially when people take the Bible as history where this becomes the problem. “Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth.”[11] It creates a false, blasphemous view of God through its simplistic understanding of the text, and demand adherence to that simplistic view, with the explanation that if one denies this scheme, one must reject Scripture itself. There is no basis by which one can understand the deeper, spiritual value of revelation. And it is for this reason it ends up creating an evil-looking God, and promotes the acceptance of intrinsic evils such as racism or genocide as being good if and when God commanded them. “Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.”[12] While simple, it is this simplicity which leads to a letter that kills, because it requires a denial of reason when engaging the faith, and leading to “intellectual suicide”:
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.[13]
No wonder St Mark the Ascetic warned us to be careful when we interpreted Scripture. He understood how people would confuse the human side of Scripture with its divine meaning, and how that would end up creating a false, humanly constructed, image of God. A God presented in the image of fallen humanity can only be a monster, the monster which we see proclaimed by fundamentalists the world over.
Footnotes
[1] Mark the Monk, “On the Spiritual Law” in Counsels on the Spiritual Life. Trans. Tim Vivian and Augustine Casiday (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 93.
[2] Pope Benedict, Regensburg Lecture, Sept 12, 2006.
[3] Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium of the Church (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 84.
[4] Dei Verbum 15 (Vatican Translation).
[5]“ Now the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, set out, and about the heat of the day they came to the house of Ishbosheth, as he was taking his noonday rest. And behold, the doorkeeper of the house had been cleaning wheat, but she grew drowsy and slept; so Rechab and Baanah his brother slipped in. When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, ‘Here is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and on his offspring’” (2 Sam 4:5-8 RSV).
[6] St Neilos the Ascetic, “Ascetic Discourse” in The Philokalia. Volume I. Trans. And ed. By G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Kallistos Ware (London: Faber and Faber, 1983), 210.
[7] Origen, “On First Principles” in ANF(4), 364.
[8] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (March 18, 1994), III-B.2
[9] St Edith Stein, “Ways to know God” in Knowledge and Faith. Trans. Walter Redmond (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 103.
[10] Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, I-F.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
The "naively literalist" straw man is used to attack any historical accuracy in the Bible. I have actually read Catholics invoking the "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" as an excuse to condemn "Fundamentalism" when there isn't a Fundamentalist Protestant in the world who subscribes to this "naively literalist" interpretation. It's just an excuse to turn the first eleven chapters of the Torah into mythology.
I notice also that the Vatican implicitly endorses historical criticism. No wonder the Catholic Church is in such a mess. Has it ever thanked Lutheranism for inventing this mode of interpretation which is now necessary in order to be a "good Catholic?"
From what I understand, there is here and there a Catholic or two who rejects higher criticism. Are they "Fundamentalist Protestants who don't know it?"
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture.
This is untrue. All the traditional sefarim of the Chakhamim accept the historicity of the entire Torah. It contains no "mythology" and was in its entirety written by G-d. I recommend Rabbi Rotenberg's History of the Eternal Nation, wherein the reader may learn such juicy tidbits as that the confusion of tongues at Babel happened 340 years after the Flood and that Noach died when Abraham was 58 years old.
If, on the other hand, by "fundamentalist interpretation" one means "sola scriptura" (a position I reject), then even that (though in error) is older than the Reformation. Both the Tzadduqqim and the Qara'im (who both pre-existed Protestantism) claimed the legitimacy of that position.
After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
So how's that liberal exegesis workin' out for ya', Catholic Church? I'm sure it has nothing to do with the crisis in your church today and that eventually it will be restored to its immemorial position as doctrinally orthodox and higher critical--NOT!!!
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
Ah yes, that critical research! So just which "church father" was it who taught that the Flood was cribbed from the Epic of Gilgamesh?
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation,
Translation: The stupid rednecks don't realize that the Bible evolved over eons and eons from pagan myths and that the early parts contain all sorts of awful things (like the extermination of the Canaanites) that "we now know" G-d would "never" command. The entire Bible is time-conditioned and full of primitive assumptions and errors until one arrives at "the new testament."
As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
The stupid fundies don't realize that the Biblical writers were stone-age savages.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the "re-readings" () of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
Ie, the primitive Biblical writers wrote one thing, and more "enlightened" Biblical writers wrote a different version later (JEPD). Have these four theoretical hagiographers been canonized yet, or had they not yet fully evolved from apes?
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Well now, isn't this interesting? Apparently the "new testament" is no better than the "old" in that it also contains silly stuff that more "primitive" writers "thought" G-d taught. Well, you'll get no argument from me if you want to tear the "nt" to shreds. Be my guest. Though I fail to understand why you still adhere to such a pathetic, mistake-filled religion.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view.
Unlike the Catholic Church with its pedophile priests and pro-abortion politicians! No wonder the Church can't discipline these people--it would be as "narrow" as the rednecks!
Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices—racism, for example—quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
"Gasp! Biblical literalism supports the claims of Zionist chr*st-killers! The racist/imperialist State of Israel must give way to the People's Republic of Palestine and the masses of rewolutionary Arab pipples!"
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous
To the Catholic Church, which is why the Church is more hostile to Jonah's Great Fish than it is to Barack Obama.
Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
And this is the "conservative" Catholic position (as opposed to the Big Bad Liberal who wrote the article NYer posted?). Please, markomalley. There is absolutely no difference between the two.
Every single time I think maybe you people have mellowed you prove me wrong. Your Church is up to its neck in scandal and infamy and you people are still attacking Biblical inerrancy and insisting the foundational documents of your religion are primitive myths? That's just plain sick.
I don't care what your Nazarene prophet promised Peter, any religion that feels compelled to attack its own foundational beliefs (because "those awful people" who plunk banjos and eat possum share them) is doomed to collapse into ruins, and all the rosaries and all the "holy spirits" in the world can't stop it.
How can you even have an intelligent conversation with someone who insists they have "the truth," that their Church is invincible, but that their foundational stories are time-conditioned mythology? Sheesh.
I'll try to remember to give up all hope for you people.
What I find interesting, and truthful, about this article is that reading the Bible in a black and white way can sometimes lead Christians into error.
First of all, we have many Christian denominations, with many interpretations, with many omissions from the text, with many individual opinions about what they are reading.
Also, that style of Bible reading often results in caring more about the Bible than your fellow man: joyfully browbeating others that you, oh-so-special you, have the real understanding of God’s word because you are so special. Many, many are the sincere searchers who have been treated harshly and disrespectfully by somebody thumping a Bible. An example of this is given in the movie “There Will Be Blood” when the “pious” minister is deliberately, publicly humiliating a sinner for his own satisfaction and pleasure.
In that sense, that type of Bible reading is simplistic. Only the Catholic Church with its wealth of knowledge, study, and tradition can view the Bible as something living and vital. Christ promised that we would continue to be taught by the Holy Spirit throughout time.
I find it hard to place value on what Billy Bob, who just got religion last month, tells me I should believe about the Bible my Church has been pouring over for over 2 thousand years!
so you believe another gospel other than that of john 1:1?
Then Joseph committed adultery?
However, that still doesn't answer the question of why it's so important to Catholics that Mary had remained a virgin for her entire life.
You show why "simplistic" is a valid charge. That, however, takes a little work. In many circles, name calling is an acceptable substitute.
Modern church goers (actually, most moderns) have a "worldly experience" which mostly came from fiction: movies, TV, and such. I would not be so quick to indulge the assumption that because we live in the neighborhood of hi-tech, that makes us superior.
I have a nightmare scenario of being haled to court after shooting a home intruder, being tried by a jury none of whom have ever seen a gun in real life, but have formed all their ideas about them from TV.
I could extrapolate this to other areas.
However, to deal with your main point, I think you would find yourself in agreement with St. Luke, who in the judgment of William Foxwell Albright was a first-class historian. After all, he commended the Berean Jews because they "checked up" on Paul. My point is to merely to note what they checked up WITH.
My reply... you will go to any lengths to defend your Maryolatry.Leaving aside the charge of "maryolatry," what lengths do you have in mind here? I don't think I went to "any lengths" but only wrote of what the words brothers and sisters can mean in real life, and therefore what we can infer from its use in the gospels. Why is this going to "any lengths?"
Let’s say she didn’t have other children (let’s just say)... Do you still insist that she is the ‘perpetual virgin’? Scripture plainly says that Joseph didn’t ‘know her’ carnally until after Jesus was born. Why point that out if he ‘never’ knew her?
In Matthew 1.25 it does say that Joseph did not know Mary until the birth of their first born son, however it doesn't imply anything like what you are saying. In Matthew 28.20 we see: And behold I am with you always, even until the end of the age. This is the same word being translated as until, and who would think of arguing that Jesus is saying after "the end of the age" he wouldn't be with us? The verse you are referring to is stating very clearly that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. It surely doesn't imply anything like what you appear to be inferring from it.
How about the ‘assumption of Mary’. Do you also subscribe to that even though it didn’t become official, but un-biblical, ‘doctrine until the 1950’s?Actually, belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is very ancient, but I don't think it is something we need to go into deeply. The Orthodox believe it, and they separated from the West about a thousand years ago.
Or the “immaculate conception’ of her who called the Son she was to bear her ‘savior’? Only sinners need a savior.
I really am reticent to go into that. I will only point out that all of this is about interpretation. None of what you are saying is written out in plain black and white. We don't see a text which lists the supposed sins of Mary, and we don't see a detailed treatise on the exact relationship between Jesus and his brothers and sisters. Neither do we have a holy table of contents at the front, with an inspired list of books to be included. All of this we have to come to through the guidance of the Spirit promised to us in the Church. The Church is the living witness of Christ in the world and it is only through her that the Bible has meaning to me. I can say, with St. Augustine, I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.
I think you miss the point. The point is that everyone has a framework in which they interpret scripture; the question is: which framework is most conducive to ACCURATE interpretation. If you fail to even raise the question and instead insist that you don’t use any interpretive framework, you deceive yourself and head down the road of blasphemy.
Then Joseph committed adultery?
Sorry, how does that follow? Why would Joseph have been an adulterer?
However, that still doesn't answer the question of why it's so important to Catholics that Mary had remained a virgin for her entire life.
Surely I could ask why it is important to you that she didn't. The Bible never says so, and yet every day people argue and debate and try to prove that she had other children. Why? I for one believe that she is ever Virgin because the Church has always taught it. If the Church was wrong throughout that entire 2000 years on that then I cannot trust her on anything, and I cannot attest to the Spirit in the world, or the fulfilment of our Lord's many promises. It seems to me that you cannot claim any revelation that Mary was other than a virgin, and nothing that you believe about the Lord seems predicated on it, and yet you find it worthy of attention. I think it much more strange that you take the position you do than I can imagine my position seeming to others.
so you believe another gospel other than that of john 1:1?
I am sorry, but I fear I am not understanding what you are asking here, and why. Could you perhaps go a bit further in your reasoning, and I will gladly answer any of your questions.
Yeah, it's called hypocrisy.
Just touch Mary and watch "doctrinal rigidity" fly.
If Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary wasn’t their mother, then they had to be Joseph’s.
The only option is that Jesus brothers and sisters were Joseph’s by another woman.
But Joseph was married to Mary. There’s no record of them getting a divorce and polygamy wasn’t permitted. So what’s left?
Plain as day. He waited until after the birth of Jesus to have sex with her, which also fits with Scripture saying that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
There is far more Scriptural evidence that this was the case than anything about Mary being a perpetual virgin.
That is only Catholic Church teaching and cannot be verified by Scripture.
You really don't know? This is the exalted Iscool, Pope of the Church of Iscool (Population 1), who reigns from the LaZBoy Throne of Theology in the Hall of Sunday Sports. Shame on you.
LDS doctrine states that Jesus is a created being by Heavenly Father, who has become God (a lesser God, but still God), and the Holy Spirit was up until recently not considered a being at all. However, the LDS teach that as Jesus was (a man become god), so may all men become gods, each in charge of their own universe. The women, though, kinda get short shrifted. They are eternally pregnant with their god-owner's children in the new universes. How'd I do, Logophile?
Early Christian writings indicate (although not with surety) that Joseph was a much older man and had had children with a wife, who died young. Therefore he was a widower and took Mary in as his second wife. This is not doctrine, by the way.
But Joseph was married to Mary. There’s no record of them getting a divorce and polygamy wasn’t permitted. So what’s left?
What if Joseph was already a father at the time of marrying the Blessed Virgin? The "brothers and sisters" would have been, in the eyes of everybody including Jesus, his real brothers and sisters. My point is that all we have from the Bible is that there were people called brothers and sisters of the Lord. If we insist that this means Mary had children we are reading into the text not from it. It just doesn't say anything about how many children Mary had.
Plain as day. He waited until after the birth of Jesus to have sex with her, which also fits with Scripture saying that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
I think this is a good example of being careful how we understand certain idioms and phrases which are being translated. The word used here also appears in other places in the Bible. For instance: And behold I am with you always, even until the end of the age. (Matthew 28.20) This is the same word, and surely nobody thinks that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us. This word is not speaking about what comes after, but only addresses the time specified. In other words, Joseph is not the father of Jesus.
“
Avoid Intellectual Suicide: Do Not Interpret the Bible Like a Fundamentalist
“
Or like a liberal seminary professor.
RE: R.C. Sproul’s recounting of how his (liberal) seminary professor
thinking Sproul’s paper on Jonah was worth of peer-review publication.
Sproul had to inform the prof. that his term paper was basically the
consensus opinion in analysis of the book of Jonah.
INDEED.
The frothing at the fingers at the first PERCEIVED less than adoration etc. toward Mary
was a significant part of what cemented for me the conviction that at least many of the rabid clique types hereon are not just over the line but over the cliff into blasphemy and idolatry of Mary.
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.