[AlguyA]

"Dave, Protestant's gots Marian traditions! ;o) I caught this, too. -)

Indeed, the following line brought a particular smile to my face:

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.... Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?

Now, consider if we change just a couple of words and wrote:

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.... Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament,(i.e. St. Jerome) and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant contradiction between the Church's belief in Mary's perpetual virginity and the scripture, 'brother of the Lord? Does anyone actually think that the Christians(St. Jerome) were so dense that they were unaware of the differences between a literal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, closed their eyes and put the epistles into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.... Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament,(i.e. St. Jerome) and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant contradiction between the Church's belief in Mary's perpetual virginity and the scripture, 'brother of the Lord? Does anyone actually think that the Christians(St. Jerome) were so dense that they were unaware of the differences between a literal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, closed their eyes and put the epistles into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?

You give Jerome too much credit. The Nucleus of the NT was accepted by most, with the exception of 5-6 books in question, couple hundred years before ol' Jerome.

[SoothingDave]

Darn! You beat me to it. Though I was gonna say "you think the early Christians were so dumb as to canonize "don't call anyone father" while they were running around doing so.

The only difference is that I have been told that. That we were "dumb enough" to leave stuff in that contradicts our dogma, cause we figured no one was ever, ever, going to read Scripture.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.... Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament,(i.e. St. Jerome) and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant contradiction between the Church's belief in Mary's perpetual virginity and the scripture, 'brother of the Lord? Does anyone actually think that the Christians(St. Jerome) were so dense that they were unaware of the differences between a literal interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, closed their eyes and put the epistles into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?

The same Jerome who claimed that Joseph was a perpetual virgin hoping no one would notice this does away with the step-brother theory?