Was Raymond Brown Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcdurel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dcdurel

Guest
Raymond Brown wrote in his book “Crises Facing the Church”
about orthodox Catholics who wanted an end to heretical catechisms,

“They do not hesitate to denounce catechisms approved by the Bishops with an incredible demand to return to the Batlimore Catechism”

He was speaking about the heretical catechisms that were so prevalent 15 years ago that some bad bishops had been approving at that time.
But in rejecting a return to the Baltimore Catechism, Raymond Brown obviously rejected clear teachings that had been handed down from the apostles, in other words, these were the fundamental teachings of the Gospel that they taught and preached. These are simply the basic teachings on the Trinity, the Creed, Sacraments, Commandments and Prayer to be which came from the apostles, and which did not come from exegesis of bible verses. These basic teachings are part of the hierarchy of truths that the Church says are central to the Gospel.
The General Directory for Catechesis states about this hierarchy of truths:
This is organized around the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, in a christocentric perspective, because this is “the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them”. (389) Starting with this point, the harmony of the overall message requires a “hierarchy of truths”, (390) in so far as the connection between each one of these and the foundation of the faith differs. Nevertheless, this hierarchy “does not mean that some truths pertain to Faith itself less than others, but rather that some truths are based on others as of a higher priority and are illumined by them”. **
Then it goes on to state this hierarchy of truths, after the Trinity, is centered on salvation history, then the Creed, Sacraments, Commandments and Prayer.**

The Baltimore Catechism, which was put out by the bishops in the 1800’s, simply clearly and explicitly presents these basic truths of the Gospel that the apostles handed down by their teaching and preaching, the same truths taught today in the Church.

It would seem to me, that by rejecting the Baltimore Catechism, which only taught the basic teachings of the Gospel as the Church has always taught from the time of the apostles, Raymond Brown was rejecting the fundamental truths of the Gospel, thus could not even remotely be Catholic, and possibly not even Christian.

To bad for years he was portrayed as the Guru on biblical exegesis and scriptural commentary, and as an editor of the Jerome Biblical Commentary, his teachings were given the highest respect by many leaders in the Church. Of course, now we can see why his exegesis was so off the wall. He simply rejected the truths handed down in Sacred Tradition by the apostles and their successors.
 
Oh, my Heavens…the Raymond Brown shooting gallery, again!

Ray Brown was a nice guy, and a good, loyal Catholic, who made the mistake of engaging in Biblical and theological speculation in print.

The vast majority of Catholics disagree with the Catholic Church on something.

One pope, Liberius, disagreed with himself on the subject of the Arian heresy – he issued a declaration condemning his own prior position on the subject.

Does anyone ask, “Was the pope Catholic”?

According to a federally-financed study, three-quarters of the sexually-active Catholics who attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis use contraceptives. Are they Catholic?

The priests know this, but engage in no efforts to stop the practice.

Are those priests Catholic?

The bishops know this, but they don’t do much of anything to stop the practicce.

Are they Catholic?
 
I think that Magisterial declarations asserting that Mary’s tissues were unbroken even in the act of giving birth squarely contradict Sacred Scripture.

Am I Catholic?

If I’m right about that position contradicting Scripture, is the Magisterium Catholic?
 
BibleReader,

There are a surprising number of things I take issue with in your response.

“Ray Brown was a … loyal Catholic, who … engag[ed] in Biblical and theological speculation…”
  1. Loyal Catholics don’t reject Church teaching. Perhaps you meant another word.
" The vast majority of Catholics disagree with the Catholic Church on something."
2. Completely irrellevant. Just because a number of people engage in heresy, that doesn’t make heresy acceptable.

“Liberius, *disagreed with himself”
3. *This is like saying that St. Peter disagreed with himself about dining with gentiles. There are no papal contradictions on binding matters, and any personal mistakes are exactly that - mistakes. If you would develope the idea of a heretic pope further (with references), we can figure out where you are going wrong.

" Does anyone ask, “Was the pope Catholic”?"
4. Yes. SSPX.

“According to a federally-financed study, three-quarters of the sexually-active Catholics who attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis use contraceptives. Are they Catholic?”
5. First and foremost, they’re in error. Second, they are Catholic, but they are not in full communion with the Holy See. They are engaged in schism, and need to be reconciled. Kinda’ like Protestants. Are they Catholic? Well…sorta’.

" The priests know this, but engage in no efforts to stop the practice. Are those priests Catholic?"
6. They are in error for not properly sheparding their flocks, but are still in communion with the Holy See.

“I think that Magisterial declarations asserting that Mary’s tissues were unbroken even in the act of giving birth squarely contradict Sacred Scripture. Am I Catholic?”
7. Where does Scripture say that Mary’s tissue was broken? That is what would be required for a contradiction. All you can say is that it doesn’t seem logical - but then again, neither does a virgin birth. And yes, you’re Catholic, but you’re also not in communion with the Holy See.

“If I’m right about that position contradicting Scripture, is the Magisterium Catholic?”
8. If the Magisterium taught error, it would not be Catholic. The promise of Christ is that His Church would be free of error, and if our Church taught error it would cease to be His. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit protects us from such an event.

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL
 
"Ray Brown was a … loyal Catholic, who … engag[ed] in Biblical and theological speculation…"

1. Loyal Catholics don’t reject Church teaching. Perhaps you meant another word.

No. I meant “loyal.” Lots of loyal Catholics knowingly and unknowingly internally disagree with the Church on this issue or that issue, even after express Magisterial declarations.

For instance – and this is a good one which is why I brought it up – most loyal Catholics believe and say that Christ was “born,” envisioning, and intending to communicate by the word “born,” the same messy, bloody, gooey birth most of them experienced.

The Magisterium clearly squarely denies this.

Are those Catholics – millions of them – not “loyal”?

Sorry, but I meant “loyal.”

" The vast majority of Catholics disagree with the Catholic Church on something."

2. Completely irrellevant. Just because a number of people engage in heresy, that doesn’t make heresy acceptable.

Ah, come on! You’re playing word games, here. Is a “heretic” a “Catholic”? Again, most Catholics disagree with the Church on something. If the term “heresy” is strictly applied, as dcdurel applies it to Ray Brown in his zealous Ray Brown shooting gallery, there’s hardly any Catholics left.

We should r e l a x, and not throw the “heresy” word around like penny candies at a parade.

"Liberius, disagreed with himself"

**3. This is like saying that St. Peter disagreed with himself about dining with gentiles. There are no papal contradictions on binding matters, and any personal mistakes are exactly that - mistakes. If you would develope the idea of a heretic pope further (with references), we can figure out where you are going wrong.

What you are doing here is “boot-strapping.” You avoid the Liberius question by defining “binding” as something not contradicted. I disagree with your view of history. So many bishops – the vast, overwhelming majority – went with Liberius’ first definition that a saying arose at the time about bishop Athanasius: “Athanasius against the world!”

" Does anyone ask, “Was the pope Catholic”?"

4. Yes. SSPX.

As far as I know, the SSPXrs never asked that about Pope Liberius!!! That is why they refer to themselves with the pseudonym “SSPX” – they’re okay with Pius IX, who came long after Liberius.
 
"According to a federally-financed study, three-quarters of the sexually-active Catholics who attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis use contraceptives. Are they Catholic?"

**5. First and foremost, they’re in error. Second, they are Catholic, but they are not in full communion with the Holy See. They are engaged in schism, and need to be reconciled. Kinda’ like Protestants. Are they Catholic? **

Well…sorta’.

My, you are a slippery eel, aren’t you?

Sexual and reproductive questions are the questions of the age. *Millions *have left the Church because they believe that they are entitled by God to a stream of risk free nookie. They commonly commit themselves to disagreeing with the concept of papal infallibility, since the pope seemed to dramatize this with his issuance of Humanae Vitae. In effect, they disagree with Magisterial inspiration, which is at the heart of the Church’s authority.

They radically physically dramatize their disagreement within their own persons when they have contraception protected sex about three times a week, 52 weeks a year, for, say, 25 years.

Many of these folks are doing this despite the fact that the role of the Pill as an abortifacient – the fact that one-third of the time the Pill causes an abotion – is becoming common knowledge.

I.e., they’d rather kill than agree with the Church!

In my view, birth control users are heretics.

You are in denial about that federal study.

"I think that Magisterial declarations asserting that Mary’s tissues were unbroken even in the act of giving birth squarely contradict Sacred Scripture. Am I Catholic?"

**7. Where does Scripture say that Mary’s tissue was broken? That is what would be required for a contradiction. All you can say is that it doesn’t seem logical - but then again, neither does a virgin birth. And yes, you’re Catholic, but you’re also not in communion with the Holy See. **

That issue is thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this site. I’m not going to re-hash that here. For starters, look at Matthew 21:4-5, which expressly teaches that Jesus was a “king,” and Wisdom 7:5, which says, “For no king has any different…birth, but one [way] is the entry into life for all.” There’s no doubt about it – Jesus beaming down through Mary’s gestational tissues to avoid tearing them would fundamentally violate a definition of a birth that was “not any different.” If you want to discuss it more, start another thread.

"If I’m right about that position contradicting Scripture, is the Magisterium Catholic?"

8. If the Magisterium taught error, it would not be Catholic. The promise of Christ is that His Church would be free of error, and if our Church taught error it would cease to be His. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit protects us from such an event.

I think that you should relax respecting your personal perceptions respecting the definitions of things defined by the Church. And, no matter what, be a little charitable.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
For instance – and this is a good one which is why I brought it up – most loyal Catholics believe and say that Christ was “born,” envisioning, and intending to communicate by the word “born,” the same messy, bloody, gooey birth most of them experienced.

The Magisterium clearly squarely denies this.
Click to expand...
This is actually a teaching of the RCC? That Jesus was not born in the usual manner?

Citations please!

Thanks and peace
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Oh, my Heavens…the Raymond Brown shooting gallery, again!

Ray Brown was a nice guy, and a good, loyal Catholic, who made the mistake of engaging in Biblical and theological speculation in print.
Click to expand...
I am not discussing his guilt or innocence, whether he is nice or not. Only God can judge our guilt. I am simply stating that in rejecting the Baltimore Catechism, when he wrote,
"with an incredible demand to return to the Baltimore Catechism"
he was rejecting the fundamental presentation of the Gospel that apostles taught and preached. He is publically rejecting fundamental Church teachings on the Creed, Sacraments, Commandments and Prayer. The General Directory for Catechesis says these four groups are part of the hierarchy of truths in which other truths are based on them and are illumned by them. These truths come directley from the apostles. When the apostles taught and preached the Gospel, they taught and preached these truths.
One can hardly be called Catholic if one publically rejects the basic teachings handed down by the apostles in their Gospel.

One can see the origin of this rejection of the truths handed down in Tradition by his definition of Tradition in his same book, “Crises Facing The Church”.
He writes in the preface, page vii, "I do not mean that the voice of Scripture, critically studied, is the only voice that the Church has to live with and respond to. The voice of Tradition (i.e., church experience and thought in the centuries after the first) has also to have its say."
Notice how he changes the definition of Tradition from being the word of God handed down from the apostles apart from Scripture, (that is orally, by examples, etc.), to “**church experience and thought” **which now includes every idea and experience that comes from man. In addition, to make it clear that he rejects the necessity of Tradition coming only from God, he specifies "in the centuries after the first". Thus he breaks the necessity of the connection between the apostles and Tradition as understood today, since no apostle lived until the second century. By this definition, Tradition can include every false idea and heresy and mistaken belief that was present amoung Catholics of that time. This is NOT the understanding of Tradition as taught by the Fathers and those who learned from the apostles.
Since he now rejects Tradition as only being the word of God, he feels free to reject that Tradition as expressed in the Baltimore Catechism. Thus he rejects the basic truths of the Gospel. His new standard of truth is now “modern biblical criticism.”
But, all this is simply Martin Luther’s “sola scriptura” in a different disguise. Instead of my interpretation of “the bible alone is my authority”, it is my interpretation of “bible based on modern biblical criticism is my authority”.
In other words, Raymond Brown did more to get “educated” Catholics to put their faith in “sola scriptura” as interpreted by “modern biblical exegetes” than any protestant that ever lived. The whole attitude today of cafeteria catholicism in which each Catholic determines what he wants to believe comes from Raymond Browns promotion of the superiority of “scripture alone” under the disguise of “modern biblical criticism” to educated Catholics, theologians, scripture scholars and bishops. This promotion was more effective than the preaching of that heresy by any open Protestant who ever lived. Every dissident in the Church today praises to the Raymond Brown to the hilt, because he was so effective in disguising “scripture alone” and he was so effective in getting it accepted by the so called Catholic institutes of higher learning in this country today.
 
The problem with many Catholics is the opposite of “Scripture alone.” They are “Pope alone” Catholics, and I think that that was one of the things Ray Brown sought to change.

I am sort of talking about the same thing, when fanatically zealous “virginity-in-partu-ites” assert with unshakable fervor that the Magisterium teaches that Jesus came out of Mary without breaking any tissues, and I answer, “But what about Wisdom 7:5?” and “What about the two-turtledove sacrifice which Leviticus prescribes for a flow of blood in giving birth?” and “What about verses saying that Mary ‘gave birth’ using the exact same terms used for Elizabeth giving birth?” and “What about the Old Testament references to one who would be the ‘first born male to open the womb’ and the fact that a baby who has beamed down isn’t quite being ‘born’?” etc., etc., etc.

Many Catholics *really couldn’t care less about Scripture, *as though they believe that the pope has *de facto *veto power over it.

Having talked to Ray Brown myself before he died, I know that that was a concern of his.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
The problem with many Catholics is the opposite of “Scripture alone.” They are “Pope alone” Catholics, and I think that that was one of the things Ray Brown sought to change.

I am sort of talking about the same thing, when fanatically zealous “virginity-in-partu-ites” assert with unshakable fervor that the Magisterium teaches that Jesus came out of Mary without breaking any tissues, and I answer, “But what about Wisdom 7:5?” and “What about the two-turtledove sacrifice which Leviticus prescribes for a flow of blood in giving birth?” and “What about verses saying that Mary ‘gave birth’ using the exact same terms used for Elizabeth giving birth?” and “What about the Old Testament references to one who would be the ‘first born male to open the womb’ and the fact that a baby who has beamed down isn’t quite being ‘born’?” etc., etc., etc.

Many Catholics *really couldn’t care less about Scripture, *as though they believe that the pope has *de facto *veto power over it.

Having talked to Ray Brown myself before he died, I know that that was a concern of his.
Click to expand...
Then you are promoting “scripture alone” again.
Jesus said we are to believe the Gospel the Church teaches and preaches. He never said we are to believe the Gospel we make up based on our guesswork on bible verses.
You are essentially Protestant, when you make your interpretation superior to that of the Church Fathers and the word of God handed down in apostolic Tradition.
Raymond Brown’s real agenda was not defending scripture from the power of the Pope over scripture, for the Pope never said he had power over scripture. The Popes have the duty to preserve the interpretation of scripture as it has come down from the apostles. Raymond Brown’s real agenda was to interpret scripture to fit his personal opinions, thereby giving divine authority to his personal desires. That was the purpose of Martin Luther’s scripture alone. The idea that the Pope has “*de facto *veto power” over scripture has never been taught by the Popes or even implied by the Popes or even practiced by the Popes. If that was Raymond Brown’s concern, then it was a straw man made up by him to justify promoting his personal opinions as the truth.
Ideas like this that he constantly made up and promoted as facts are simply signs that he was not interested in the truth, but interested in promoting his ideas as equal to those of God.
Why would anyone change the definition of apostolic tradition so that it can include any man-made error, except to raise man made beliefs to being equal to God’s teachings?

There is a God and Raymond Brown certainly was not Him
 
**You are essentially Protestant, when you make your interpretation superior to that of the Church Fathers and the word of God handed down in apostolic Tradition.
**
**The Popes have the duty to preserve the interpretation of scripture as it has come down from the apostles. **

Even the Church would disagree with this, my friend.

The Church has long taught that comprehension of Scripture has evolved, on various issues.

This is even expressly taught in the Book of Daniel, although I can not provide the cite off the cuff.

When you say that I am essentially “Protestant,” and you then err, does that mean that you would agree that you have it backwards – that *you *are the “Protestant.”

Or, are you immune?
 
BibleReader said:
You are essentially Protestant, when you make your interpretation superior to that of the Church Fathers and the word of God handed down in apostolic Tradition.

**The Popes have the duty to preserve the interpretation of scripture as it has come down from the apostles. **

Even the Church would disagree with this, my friend.

The Church has long taught that comprehension of Scripture has evolved, on various issues.

This is even expressly taught in the Book of Daniel, although I can not provide the cite off the cuff.

When you say that I am essentially “Protestant,” and you then err, does that mean that you would agree that you have it backwards – that *you *are the “Protestant.”

Or, are you immune?
Click to expand...

Scripture always must be interpreted according to God’s word handed down in apostolic Tradition. That cannot change. Now, all of scripture is not explicit and all of scripture has not been given an explicit interpretation by the Church. St. Augustine said there is more that he did not understand in scripture than what he did understand. Therefore the part that has not been given an explicit interpretation and is not clear can be interpreted in different ways, as long as it is interpreted in accord with God’s word handed down in apostolic Tradition, and with the rest of scripture and within the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is because by definition scripture comes from God and the criteria the Church used to determine what was scripture was apostolic Tradition, which comes from God. God cannot contradict God. Thus the apostles were the source of what is scripture, the apostles were the source of basic Catholic teaching and their source was God. Since Raymond Brown rejected the fundamental teachings of apostolic Tradition in the Baltimore Catechism, the hierarchey of truths, the very essentials of Catholic teaching that came from the apostles, then he decided he was free to interpret scripture according to his whims and fancies. Why do you think the Baltimore Catechism suddenly fell into disuse in Catholic schools and classes for catechumens? It was because of Raymond Brown. One priest told me once that he was assigned to a parish and he assigned the Baltimore Catechism to all the students. The other priests in the diocese all criticised him and told him that he could’d do that. He asked why not? What was wrong with it? They could not come up with a single reason. The idea that we should reject the basic truths the apostles handed down in the Baltimore Catechism was promoted mainly by Raymond Brown. The idea that Catholics should reject the authority of the Pope and the magisterium, and interpret scripture to our own whims and fancies (scripture alone) in this country comes from Raymond Brown. To complete his freedom he changed the definition of Tradition, from that of the Fathers, to include every error and opinion that existed among Catholics, and he even broke the connection between the apostles and Tradition. What else was he but a Protestant, and not a Protestant seeking the truth like Scott Hahn and others who sought out the teachings of the Fathers, but a Protestant who sought to interpret scripture according to his prior held whims and fancies. Scripture became for him merely a legitimate way to give authority to his beliefs. He wanted women priests for example, therefore he searched only for those scriptures that seemed to support his opinion and ignored the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Then, to keep his influence and authority in the Church he proclaimed to accept all the Church taught. But, he always put in a hedge, after proclaiming scriptural scholars, especially Protestant scriptural scholars as the latest and greatest and scientifically correct, after claiming the Church was wrong in the past. He would say something like this. “Even though the vast majority of scripture scholars using the latest scientifically based modern biblical criticism overwhelmingly believe such and such, I still follow what the Church teaches” Thus, after proclaiming the scriptural scholars as almose infallible (which is stupid since they can’t agree on anything) and after essentially claiming the Church as fallible in scriptural interpretation and unreasonable (such as claiming the Pope has de facto veto power over scripture) then he says he always follows Church teaching. Thus, he protects himself from getting kicked out the Church and at the same time he makes the Church seem like a fool by seeming to make the Church teach something that nobody in their right mind would teach. Thus, he made his beliefs the new standard. He became the new Pope. He becomes the judge of whether the Church is acting scientifically or not when it comes to scripture. His personal interpretation of scripture (sola scriptura) now is the judge of all else.
 
He always claimed that he was a centrist, and those who follow apostolic Tradition (ultramontaine he called them) are far right, and the way out liberals are far left, but he has got it just right.
This was a constant theme of his. And since at the same time priests were misled to believe that they could no longer teach doctrine during the homily, but could only give commentary on the readings, and since the Jerome Bibilcal Commentary, edited by Raymond Brown, was proclaimed by others (dissidents) as the greatest and latest, then they were forced to go to it for biblical commentary and thus were exposed to more of his ideas in which he teaches the Church is wrong and a fool, and only those who reject apostolic Tradition and past teachings and follow the new Protestant led freedom of modern biblical criticism are correct. A freedom where all scripture can be interpreted correctly by modern biblical exegetes, esp. protestants, and this private interpretation of the word of God is our primary authority as to the truth.
Raymond Brown was simply another Martin Luther who claimed he never left the Church. And because he claimed he was Catholic and a scholar and approved by the Popes, (because he was once appointed to the Pontifical biblical commission) he was much more effective than Martin Luther in getting educated Catholics to reject the teachings and authority of the same Popes, and reject the basic truths the apostles handed down and make private interpretation of scripture as the new norm for knowing God’s word.
 
BibleReader said:
"

**7. Where does Scripture say that Mary’s tissue was broken? That is what would be required for a contradiction. All you can say is that it doesn’t seem logical - but then again, neither does a virgin birth. And yes, you’re Catholic, but you’re also not in communion with the Holy See. **

That issue is thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this site. I’m not going to re-hash that here. For starters, look at Matthew 21:4-5, which expressly teaches that Jesus was a “king,” and Wisdom 7:5, which says, “For no king has any different…birth, but one [way] is the entry into life for all.” There’s no doubt about it – Jesus beaming down through Mary’s gestational tissues to avoid tearing them would fundamentally violate a definition of a birth that was “not any different.” If you want to discuss it more, start another thread.
Click to expand...

Indeed, all kings are born the same, they are born of a woman. Jesus was also born of a woman. However, Kings birth is at conception, which is the result of sex. Mary is a Virgin, making Christ’s birth different? I’m not seeing where Wisdom says that her tissues must be torn.
 
it is verY clear ray browN denied the total innerancy of scripture–wHich is catholic doctrine-and has been the constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages—at best Brown was in theological error–at worse he was a HERETIC
 
40.png
armydude12:
it is verY clear ray browN denied the total innerancy of scripture–wHich is catholic doctrine-and has been the constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages—at best Brown was in theological error–at worse he was a HERETIC
Click to expand...
Hi, friend.

Compare Acts 9:7…

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.

…with Acts 22:9…

My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.

It appears to be a pure Scriptural contradiction!

This also appears to be a pure error!:

Then was fulfilled what had been said through Jeremiah the prophet, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of a man with a price on his head, a price set by some of the Israelites,…” Matthew 27:9.

Nothing in Jeremiah even remotely resembles this. Instead, it appears to be a paraphrasing of Zechariah.

If the Church taught the TOTAL inerrancy of Scripture, as you allege, that, too, would be an error.

Between Acts, the Church, and Ray Brown’s alleged statement, ONLY RAY BROWN’S ALLEGED STATEMENT WOULD BE ACCURATE!
 
40.png
RedDeathsMask:
Indeed, all kings are born the same, they are born of a woman. Jesus was also born of a woman. However, Kings birth is at conception, which is the result of sex. Mary is a Virgin, making Christ’s birth different? I’m not seeing where Wisdom says that her tissues must be torn.
Click to expand...
No. The first words of Wisdom 7:1 are, “I too am a MORTAL man…” Subject to death and the other problems human flesh experiences.

Inspired Solomon’s inspired words speak of death and birth in the same section because he’s saying, “Just as all kings (including Christ) die in the same miserable, frightening, life-sucking way, they are all born in the same miserable, painful, bloody, messy, gooey way.”

Also, clearly, when his point is that all kings “check out” the same way, this helps to define the meaning of his words on being born…they “check in” the same way.

Solomon’s own words define what he means by the “origin” of all kings, which occurs before the “birth”:

And in my mother’s womb I was molded into flesh
In His mother’s womb, Christ was molded into flesh.

from the seed of man
The underlying Greek term permits an interpretation, "From the seed of “mankind”: When Jesus was conceived, He was apparently molded out of one of immaculately conceived Mary’s immaculate ova. Thus, Jesus was “from the seed of man,” as required by Wisdom 7:2.

and the pleasure that accompanies marriage
Apparently, Mary’s encounter with the Holy Spirit was pleasurable. This is not surprising. The Holy Spirit is God, Who is filled with infinite joy.

Although swaddling clothes were commonly wrapped around babies, Solomon’s statement…

In swaddling clothes and with constant care I was nurtured

…actually seems to affirmatively connect these verses with Christ. I.e., because swaddling clothes around babies were common, *why bring it up? *Answer: Solomon is saying, “The divine voice behind mine is Christ, Himself!”

No matter what, Solomon’s words are a simple, direct, all-inclusive tautology…

For no king has any different origin or birth, but one [way] is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it.

Clearly, beaming-down out of Mary would violate this tautology.

Proof: Suppose it were well known on Earth that half of the kings of Earth beamed-down out of their mothers.

Would Solomon have written what he wrote?

No.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
No. The first words of Wisdom 7:1 are, “I too am a MORTAL man…” Subject to death and the other problems human flesh experiences.

Inspired Solomon’s inspired words speak of death and birth in the same section because he’s saying, “Just as all kings (including Christ) die in the same miserable, frightening, life-sucking way, they are all born in the same miserable, painful, bloody, messy, gooey way.”

Also, clearly, when his point is that all kings “check out” the same way, this helps to define the meaning of his words on being born…they “check in” the same way.

Solomon’s own words define what he means by the “origin” of all kings, which occurs before the “birth”:

And in my mother’s womb I was molded into flesh
In His mother’s womb, Christ was molded into flesh.

from the seed of man
The underlying Greek term permits an interpretation, "From the seed of “mankind”: When Jesus was conceived, He was apparently molded out of one of immaculately conceived Mary’s immaculate ova. Thus, Jesus was “from the seed of man,” as required by Wisdom 7:2.

and the pleasure that accompanies marriage
Apparently, Mary’s encounter with the Holy Spirit was pleasurable. This is not surprising. The Holy Spirit is God, Who is filled with infinite joy.

Although swaddling clothes were commonly wrapped around babies, Solomon’s statement…

In swaddling clothes and with constant care I was nurtured

…actually seems to affirmatively connect these verses with Christ. I.e., because swaddling clothes around babies were common, *why bring it up? *Answer: Solomon is saying, “The divine voice behind mine is Christ, Himself!”

No matter what, Solomon’s words are a simple, direct, all-inclusive tautology…

For no king has any different origin or birth, but one [way] is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it.

Clearly, beaming-down out of Mary would violate this tautology.

Proof: Suppose it were well known on Earth that half of the kings of Earth beamed-down out of their mothers.

Would Solomon have written what he wrote?

No.
Click to expand...
Another proof: Suppose I wrote here, “Hey, folks, Jesus was born – He entered life, the exact same way you or I did…” Would the the “in-partu-ites” correct me, or wouldn’t they?

They’d correct me.

I.e., your position is against the customary meaning of words, RedDeathsMask.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top