Posted on 09/30/2003 9:32:47 AM PDT by Fifthmark
The article was interesting, I have a couple Jewish "commentaries " ( and I used to get some on line too ) It is interesting to note how the Jews interpret them without the NT completion . They have a limited insight into the nature of some of the types and prophecies .
The NT tells us that their eyes are blinded so that the purpose of God can be accomplished.( But that is obviously not as an entire group state because many of the Jews have found Christ.)
I agree they do know who the Holy Spirit is. But not the completion or indwelling Holy Spirit as that is a gift to the Church .have the indwelling Spirt
As to how the "brothers" could be alien to Him:
John 7:
[1] After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.
[2] Now the Jews' feast of Tabernacles was at hand.
[3] So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing.
[4] For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world."
[5] For even his brothers did not believe in him.
And............
Mark 6
[4] And Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."
Yes, the "sons of His mother" were, for a time, alien to Him. They became believers, after the resurection.
Why? The whole Psalm is about Christ. If any Psalm's speak of David, they also apply to Christ.
Then, since you use Douay-Rheims as one of your primary sources, it would be difficult for you to disclaim it's interpretation. Do you have any sources other than yourself which make this claim?
Haydock's Comprehenisve Catholic Bible Commentary agrees with this.
James the greater is the supposed brother of John, not the brother of the Lord.
Pardons! I meant James the Lesser.
Yes, the "sons of His mother" were, for a time, alien to Him. They became believers, after the resurection.
You know, of course, that Catholics hold Mary to have been ever a Virgin. The brethren spoken of here are cousins.
Exactly! They have the same faith, but the fail to recognize Who the faith is all about, the Lord Jesus, so they are forced into various bizarre heremenuetical contortions to avoid the logical conclusion pressed by Jesus' life.
Wow we have agreement :>)
Well, I still take issue with the "assumption that the chosen reality was (for some reason) the better reality from God's perspective". I don't think that we can "assume" that the chosen reality was (for some reason) the better reality from God's perspective; all we can say (IMHO) is that the Existent Reality is the one which God acctually did choose to Create, and that He will fully accomplish all His purposes therein. However, when we introduce into the discussion the "assumption that the chosen reality was (for some reason) the better reality from God's perspective", we start introducing negative concepts into the Nature of God Himself. Here's why:
Thus, we are compelled to admit that all Predestination is based upon Fore-Ordination, for the Actuality of the Foreknown Events within Creation (God's foreknowledge of that Creation) is itself a Conditional Potentiality, the actuality of which is logically conditional upon the logically antecedent and precedent question of whether or not God chooses to Create at all.
Ergo, all Predestination must be spoken of as a matter of Deliberate and Elective Fore-Ordination, beginning with the logically antecedent and precedent question of whether or not God chooses to Create at all and proceeding irrevocably from that point.
Perfectly fair. I'm typing it up now; As it is, I have organized my response as a Post which is segmented into several elements (with my comments on the definition of the Calvinist position preceding the remainder of the Post), but I suppose I could divide it up into two entirely separate Postings if you prefer.
For the sake of simplicity, though, I'd prefer just to keep it all in one internally-segmented Post; you'd only hafta hit the "Reply To" Button once.
I'm gonna be late for Sunday School. I'll try to have my Post ready this afternoon (it's about 75-80% complete at the moment).
best, OP
Hmm, this is very reminiscent of St. Thomas in the Summa, Pt. I, Q. 25, Art. 6, Obj. 3 & Resp. 3, "Whether God can do better than what He does?"
Objection 3. Further, what is very good and the best of all cannot be bettered; because nothing is better than the best. But as Augustine says (Enchiridion 10), "each thing that God has made is good, and, taken all together they are very good; because in them all consists the wondrous beauty of the universe." Therefore the good in the universe could not be made better by God.On the contrary, It is said (Eph. 3:20): "God is able to do all things more abundantly than we desire or understand."
I answer that, The goodness of anything is twofold; one, which is of the essence of it--thus, for instance, to be rational pertains to the essence of man. As regards this good, God cannot make a thing better than it is itself; although He can make another thing better than it; even as He cannot make the number four greater than it is; because if it were greater it would no longer be four, but another number. For the addition of a substantial difference in definitions is after the manner of the addition of unity of numbers (Metaph. viii, 10). Another kind of goodness is that which is over and above the essence; thus, the good of a man is to be virtuous or wise. As regards this kind of goodness, God can make better the things He has made. Absolutely speaking, however, God can make something else better than each thing made by Him.
Reply to Objection 3. The universe, the present creation being supposed, cannot be better, on account of the most beautiful order given to things by God; in which the good of the universe consists. For if any one thing were bettered, the proportion of order would be destroyed; as if one string were stretched more than it ought to be, the melody of the harp would be destroyed. Yet God could make other things, or add something to the present creation; and then there would be another and a better universe.
Thanks for the excellent citation from the Summa, but I must respectfully offer the following criticism: Very Reminiscent, yes. Expressly Relevant, um... no.
In the first place, you will note that the bulk of my argument concerns the intrinsic perfection of the Aseity of God as it pertains to His Choice to Create or not to Create, which for the most part Aquinas does not even address.
Yes, I know -- I'm aware that his "Reply II" touches on Aseity tangentially. However, I trust you have already noted that Aquinas did not actually quote the Contra Maximinum here; he rather inverted the terms of Augustine's original argument from an Argument for Triadology based on Aseity, into an argument for Aseity based on Triadology, and then jury-rigged it into an argument for Perfection of Pre-Creative Aseity vis-a-vis Perfection of Post-Creative Aseity. In the end, Aquinas does manage to point out that this inverted-Triadological argument is an invalid comparison (he's right, natch, it is -- and poor Dr.Augustin is spinning in Abraham's Bosom from the wild liberties to which Dr.Thomas is subjecting his sermon), but in all the trinitarian square-dancing with Augustine, he didn't even manage to get to the basic Argument I have made on the matter.
Other than that, Reply I is sufficiently qualified ("When it is said that God can make a thing better than He makes it, if "better" is taken substantively, this proposition is true... If, however, "better" is taken as an adverb, implying the manner of the making; thus God cannot make anything better than He makes it, because He cannot make it from greater wisdom and goodness"), that I could frankly debate it or take it as evidence for my principal argument on Aseity, at my leisure (actually, I could even incorporate his "pro" argument while at the same time debating his "con", if I cared to).
Reply III is not the best Aquinas which I have ever read -- Thomas does speak a little to the logically subsequent, dependent and consequent question of superiority between differing Potential Creations, but kinda disappointingly confuses diversity and quantity with superiority and quality, here, making my job easier; and leaves himself more vulnerable still by addressing neither set of concepts to the matter of Ultimate Ends -- but again, is not directly relevant to the main Eternal Self-Sufficiency argument which I have advanced.
Reply IV concerns a narrow set of Perfections (the humanity of Christ and the dignity of Mary) which would presumably be true in either Potential Creation discussed in Matthew 11, for whether Tyre&Sidon were predestined to Salvation or to Reprobation the humanity of the Messiah would be equally perfect as would the dignity of His Mother as pertaining to her office as Theotokos. So granted as True, but as with the foregoing, largely irrelevant to the question of Perfect Pre-Creative Aseity and/or the logically subsequent, dependent and consequent question of superiority between differing Potential Creations.
ARGH. Never mind. I still have your "Council of Orange" post to finish... I've spent too much time already analyzing how I could take some of Aquinas' arguments as evidence, dispute the others, and ignore the rest. I'll try to get back to a more exhaustive review and critique of the Summa's Objections and Replies another time.
"Layman" and "no formal theological" background I share with you -- confirming my (adversarial) good opinion of you, as it's always nice to see Laymen who don't leave Theology to the Priests (and yes, I fully affirm the propriety of Lay subjection to Presbyters in good standing, but of course we still have lesser self-educational obligations of our own, neh?).
I do have some formal debating background, but that was ten years ago, and I generally only trade "insider debate gotchas" with Calvinist_Dark_Lord, who sometimes pretends to humility and claims that I am yet a few gears less rusty than he -- but he lies, lies most deceitfully... he debated against my old Coach with some ability on his part, and my old Coach was kinda the Terror of the East Coast (which I was not).
I finally finished your promised Calvinist exposition of the Council of Orange, now I just have to tack on my addendum as to the Baptisms of Water, Desire and Blood. It's late. maybe on the Morrow.
best, OP
Haydock's Comprehenisve Catholic Bible Commentary agrees with this.
Never having heard of Haydock I was forced to my trusty Google. What a surprise! A commentary on Douay-Rheims written by Father Haydock. What else did you expect? Can you do better?
I did find reference to a copy available at $125. Not in the cards for me.
You know, of course, that Catholics hold Mary to have been ever a Virgin.
Yes, of course!
The brethren spoken of here are cousins.
You ignore that there is a distinct word for cousin which could be used here.
Do you agree with Jerome that Joseph was a perpetual Virgin?
Could that be the reason you feel forced to the "cousin" theory?
You asked for other commentaries. The normally known Douai commentary and notes are from Bishop Challoner around 1750. There were early commentaries from the original translators, and later ones such as Haydock's. If you want others I'll try to dig some up.
Do you agree with Jerome that Joseph was a perpetual Virgin?
I don't have a dog in that fight. Half-brothers is fine with me too. What's clear to me is that James and Joses, etc. are not sons of the Virgin Mary.
You asked for other commentaries. The normally known Douai commentary and notes are from Bishop Challoner around 1750. There were early commentaries from the original translators, and later ones such as Haydock's. If you want others I'll try to dig some up.
Not unless you can post a link. I'm too cheap to purchase books for a one time use. Thanks anyway.
Please tell me how the "sons of my mother" in Psalms 68:9 differ from those in Judges 8:19.
Judges 8:
19: And he said, "They were my brothers, the sons of my mother; as the LORD lives, if you had saved them alive, I would not slay you."
__________________________________________________________________________________
(Reg) Do you agree with Jerome that Joseph was a perpetual Virgin?
I don't have a dog in that fight. Half-brothers is fine with me too. What's clear to me is that James and Joses, etc. are not sons of the Virgin Mary.
I asked the question because I was under the impression that Catholic Theologians had just about abandoned the "cousin" theory. Jerome's "Virgin Joseph" explanation demanded that the "brothers" of Jesus be "cousins".
I don't have a dog in that fight. Half-brothers is fine with me too. What's clear to me is that James and Joses, etc. are not sons of the Virgin Mary.
I agree. Jesus is the son of the Virgin Mary. His brothers are children of Mary, the wife of Joseph.
"Layman" and "no formal theological" background I share with you -- confirming my (adversarial) good opinion of you, as it's always nice to see Laymen who don't leave Theology to the Priests (and yes, I fully affirm the propriety of Lay subjection to Presbyters in good standing, but of course we still have lesser self-educational obligations of our own, neh?).
Let me assure you Hermann, OP is sandbagging you. Don’t play cards with the man and by all means make him roll up his sleeves and WATCH HIS HANDS. I also have no formal theological training, yet have arrived at the doctrine of the Catholic creeds (excepting of course Trent and beyond, which can hardly be called a "universal" creed). The Holy Spirit working though Word and Sacrament, but not through any Teaching Magisterium, either Catholic or Protestant lead to the truth in accordance with theWord of God which is the Apostolic Tradition. It does produce a margin of frustration to find that one has "reinvented the wheel", and could have saved time with study of those gone on before us as pathfinders.
I do have some formal debating background, but that was ten years ago, and I generally only trade "insider debate gotchas" with Calvinist_Dark_Lord, who sometimes pretends to humility and claims that I am yet a few gears less rusty than he -- but he lies, lies most deceitfully... he debated against my old Coach with some ability on his part, and my old Coach was kinda the Terror of the East Coast (which I was not).
You do realise that I wondered why for no particular reason my ears were burning, as was my keyboard. Allow me to set the record straight Hermann, and don’t pay attention to the false humility of this pathological liar, and slanderer of the brethern.
i was in fact, an electrical engineering majour at a small state college south of Pittsburgh. We, unlike Liberty University, had no scholarships available for either debate or any other form of forensics. I debated out of my love for the endevour, nothing more. It was a long time in between high school (where I competed for two years) and College, where I started later in life. OP certainly must admit that it is quite difficult to focus on the elements of an argument in order to provide rebuttal while simultaneously contemplating the torture placed upon all engineering majours by the infamous three Frenchmen (DeCartes, Fourier, and LaPlace).
i did in fact compete against OP’s former coach who we refer to as the Infamous David K_ as well as his brother, the equally Infamous Charles K_. We met at a Summer Debate Workshoppe at George Mason University. While all were signing in, I noticed that there were two participants from Liberty University (Jerry Fallwell’s school). I told my partner, a quiet decent "Jack Morman" lady, that I bet I could spot these guys, since I speak fluent "evangelicaleese". Of course you realise I was looking for two quiet, well groomed young men in conservative dark suits. I spot two candidates and thought they just had to be the K_ brothers from Liberty...NOT! Rather, these are the two attendees from St. Vincent’s in Latrobe PA. In walks these two fellows, one wearing this rather loud shirt that had to have batteries to keep it lit, and hair that has definitely failed obedience training, as well as a large mug of black coffee that had to be wrestled into the cup < /bald headed jealousy> followed by a somewhat shorter fellow with a semi-skinhead do, wearing jeans and a sleevless leather vest...you got it. The infamous K_ brothers from Liberty. My partner and I looked at each other in puzzlement, and I said "Things are getting a mite ‘progressive’ down Fallwell way".
For 10 days these guys never slept. We were terrified at the thoughts of taking them on in competition. The workshoppe was intense enough at it was. Two guys from James Madison University actually got into a fistfight with each other during the tournement. For my own effort, the tournement rules required jacket and tie, so I wore a jacket and a tie...along with a Chain Mail Halburk that I had been working on for three years, because I was coming dressed for a rumble. Actually it was a horrible mistake in the overenthuiastic air conditioning of buildings in Fairfax, VA, nearly froze to death.
The next year, I meet the infamous David K_ in a tournement at Wake Forrest University. Ok, it must have been one of my better moments, cause it was a close round (which we lost). I went on to obscurity, and the Infamous David K_ went on to two national Championships.
Now you know:
I finally finished your promised Calvinist exposition of the Council of Orange, now I just have to tack on my addendum as to the Baptisms of Water, Desire and Blood. It's late. maybe on the Morrow.
best, OP
This should prove to be interesting, though i’d like to see the topics of Love, Power, and a sound mind, something this old man lacks these days with all of the distractions that living a life (sort of) provides.
Regards,
CDL
You went to CMU? I graduated from ECE in 90.
SD
CivE in 96.
Do you miss fries from "The O", Primanti Brother's sandwiches, Rolling Rock and Iron City? I do.
I was born here and I'll probably die here. "Here" being Westmoreland County, just to the east of the City. So the Rolling Rock is fresher. I am getting a hankering for some O fries. My 2 year old has never had them.
SD
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.