no…you are just simply misunderstanding me
I would rather be at fault for misunderstanding than persist in my perception that you are leveling false accusations. I know you don’t consider Catholics real brothers in Christ, as we do you, and worthy of respectful treatment, but it is a sad thought just the same.
yes that is obvious…it is like this:
a) James the brother of the Lord is not a uterine brother b)therefore any mention of James is not a mention of a blood brother
This statements in “a” and “b” eliminate no scriptures. It is the premise from the Sacred Tradition that functions as the lens through which we understand Scripture. Since the Word of God deposited in the Church cannot contradict the Word of God deposited in the Holy Scripture, we must be able to reconcile our perceptions.
c) therefore the bible is silent wrt blood brothers
But it is clearly NOT silent about the brethren of Christ, which I would posit must still be considered “blood” brothers, since they are too closely related by blood to be marriagable within the clan structure. The fact that they are not from the same womb that he is does not mean they cannot be blood relations. First cousins are also considered blood relations, as would half siblings. Hebrews were forbidden to marry “blood” relations that were as close as their own clan.
d) such silence makes it impossible for such blood brothers to have existed e) b/c they can’t have existed, James the brother of the Lord is not a uterine brother
This is certainly NOT a Catholic position, which, if you were willing to be honest about this debate, would not even suggest. Catholics are very strong on the idea that the NT was never inteneded to be a full compendium of the faith, and that just because something is not found in scripture does not mean it did not “exist”. We never see Jesus or his aposltes taking care of their personal hygiene, either. Are you going to suggest that Jesus taught “nothing” between His resurrection and His ascension, just because it is not recorded?
Or that Paul said “nothing” for two years at the Temple of Tyrannus, just because we don’t have his lecture outline?
It is this kind of false representation that makes your approach appear weak and disingenuous. Honestly, Radical. I have been reading your posts for a couple years, and this is very pathetic of you to do.
the elimination that I was talking about was the elimination of those passages as instances where Jesus’ blood brothers are mentioned. Got it? (Another nice circle BTW)
T’hen you have proved yourself to misrepresent the truth, Radical. Catholics receive every single passage of the Holy Scriptures as inspired and inerrant, and are not at liberty to eliminate any of them, even if we don’t understand them.
Code:
yes, and I have gone to great lengths to show you that the "passing down" suffers from a huge gap...making it extremely suspect
You have, but again, such a “gap” does not concern us, as we see the same “gap” with the development of other doctrines and practices, such a the hypostatic union, Trinity, Theotokos, gathering on Sundays and the canon of scripture. There is NO GAP in the passing down. You are conflating the paradosis with the historical records. The fact that we have few references to infant baptism, for instance, does not mean it has not been practiced since NT times. The fact that the term “Trinity” does not appear for centuries does NOT mean the Christian Church did not believe in the Trinity.
You are coming to a false conclusion that you have based on a false premise. You are guilty of the very charge you level at Catholics. Freud calls that “projection”.
it is more that, given the history and the people that make up your Church, I find it impossible to believe that it is the one true Church charged with guarding the deposit of faith…God has the power to cause Balaam to prophecy on his behalf for as long as God wants…a day, a week, a year, a century, etc. It isn’t a question of God’s power/ability…it is a question of your hierarchy’s faithfulness.
Then you are using a wordly attitude to try to understand the things of God, which I think you will agree, is not appropriate. For one thing, the deposit of faith is not dependent upon the faithfulness of only the heirarchy. Although it is the special responsibility of Bishops to guard what has been entrusted to them, this does not take any responsiblity away from the laity to do the same.
If you cannot trust God to preserve His Word where He has placed it, then how can you trust any of the information in Genesis that gives the account of God’s interaction wth humanity from Adam to Moses? How do you think these Truths were preseverd and handed down for 5000 years? Three were certainly unfaithful persons among God’s chosen people!
In Christ . P7.