Posted on 01/17/2016 6:42:01 AM PST by Salvation
By "biblical basics" I assume he means "allegorized the crap out of 'em."
Preach it, brother.
Just because Monsignor Pope’s interpretation doesn’t agree with many protestant’s interpretation?
Probably not. More because he’s reading way more into the text than is warranted by what the text actually says.
Protestants don’t *interpret* Scripture.
They read it and tell people what it says.
We’re not trying to change what it says, so we don’t *interpret* it so we can tell people that it means something different than what it says.
The facts about the wedding at Cana.
Mary and Jesus and His brothers were there. They ran out of wine. Mary told Jesus. Then Mary told the servants to do what Jesus told them to do. They did it. Jesus changed the water into wine.
The servants knew what happened.
It was His first recorded miracle.
His earthly ministry began shortly after that.
Simple.
All the rest of it, the reading into it of motives and speculation about what someone was doing and why is irrelevant and meaningless.
It is interesting that when I suggested a reason for the Bible to refer to ‘the sons of Alpheus’ and names James and John as brothers of Jesus, my suggestion -NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE- is rejected because it is not in the Bible yet many of the dogmas of catholiciism are not found in the Bible either! [Mary could have had a second husband and children by him if Joseph died while Mary was still of child bearing age.]
Beautiful!
No, because Tonsignor Pope's interpretation imports external ideas into the text as key to its interpretation. One would not find all that drivel in John 2 about Mary arranging a "mystical marriage" or "they have no wine" being an intercessory prayer, unless those things were already assumed to be true of Mary.
That's the problem with much allegory. The key to interpreting the allegory is external to it. Tonsignor Pope is begging the question in a big way.
Explains the utter hatred one sees directed toward Our Lady. Sad. Prayers up.
.
What is the Bible worth against the wisdom of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin...
.
Those were cousins.
LOL! I can almost hear that song from Fiddler On The Roof singing ‘Tradition’.
LOL, what about sisters? were they Catholic nuns?
“Just because Monsignor Pope’s interpretation doesn’t agree with many protestant’s interpretation?”
You used the word “interpretation”, but we are pointing out not interpretation, but the things he made up and then pretended were in the passage. That isn’t a matter of interpretation. It is adding things that are not true as eisogesis.
Not per the Greek and texts.....if read in context. For the umpteenth time there is a word for cousins and is used only once in the NT and it’s in Colossians.
The text does not say that. The Holy Spirit inspired the use of the words for *brother* and *sister* and did not use the word for cousin as He did for Elizabeth.
Strong's Concordance
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
adelphos: a brother
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm
The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.
It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.
It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.
They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.
The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.
And it would not be *cousin*.
The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm
Strong's Concordance
suggenes: akin, a relative
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: suggenes
Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')
Short Definition: akin, a relative
Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.
What utter hatred?
Is it utter hatred simply to stick true to what Scripture states someone and not embellish it?
Cries of *hatred* are the last resort of one losing an debate, FWIW.
.
Its “catholic on the roof” now!
The Momronism apologists who frequented FR for years like to close off discussion by calling anyone who was exposing the heresies and blasphemies in their ism. Are all cults given to that same methodology? seems to be ...
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.