Was Raymond Brown Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dcdurel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BibleReader:
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.
Click to expand...
Charity please.
 
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...
But it says all kings are born the same, the result of sexual intercourse. Christ was not the result of sexual intercourse. Mary may have felt “pleasure” but it was not sexual intercourse. I’m still not seeing where it says she must be torn open. The only way it can apply to Christ is that Kings are born of women, which Christ was.
 
40.png
RedDeathsMask:
But it says all kings are born the same, the result of sexual intercourse. Christ was not the result of sexual intercourse. Mary may have felt “pleasure” but it was not sexual intercourse. I’m still not seeing where it says she must be torn open.
Click to expand...
Nah. I think that you are intentionally misinterpreting to save your point, rather than trying to achieve accurate meaning.

Do you think, after he has started and finished talking about “origin,” and then talks about “birth,” he’s going to include “sexual intercourse” in his definition of “birth”?

Again, the solution is simple: Imagine a row of 999 mothers of kings giving birth in the same “MORTAL” way: They break water, they suffer contractions, the baby slides out amidst a sea of goo and blood.

Finally, we get to mother 1,000: There is no breaking of water; the baby never slides out. Instead, the baby slowly materializes in a glowing Gnostic pleroma, a cloud of light. Tah-zing! He appears!

Would Solomon call that a “MORTAL” birth, no different than the other 999 kings?

No.

You are wrong.

You are actually dramatizing one of my other points – and one of Ray Brown’s points: MANY CATHOLIC’S COULDN’T CARE LESS WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS.

Just as Protestants ascribe to *sola scriptura, *many Catholics unfortunately functionally subscribe to sola popa.

You’re doing it right now, and denying that you are doing it.

Thank you for so effectively dramatizing my point.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Nah. I think that you are intentionally misinterpreting to save your point, rather than trying to achieve accurate meaning.

Do you think, after he has started and finished talking about “origin,” and then talks about “birth,” he’s going to include “sexual intercourse” in his definition of “birth”?

Again, the solution is simple: Imagine a row of 999 mothers of kings giving birth in the same “MORTAL” way: They break water, they suffer contractions, the baby slides out amidst a sea of goo and blood.

Finally, we get to mother 1,000: There is no breaking of water; the baby never slides out. Instead, the baby slowly materializes in a glowing Gnostic pleroma, a cloud of light. Tah-zing! He appears!

Would Solomon call that a “MORTAL” birth, no different than the other 999 kings?

No.

You are wrong.

You are actually dramatizing one of my other points – and one of Ray Brown’s points: MANY CATHOLIC’S COULDN’T CARE LESS WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS.

Just as Protestants ascribe to *sola scriptura, *many Catholics unfortunately functionally subscribe to sola popa.

You’re doing it right now, and denying that you are doing it.

Thank you for so effectively dramatizing my point.
Click to expand...
With God, all things are possible, even the Virginal Birth that the Magesterium has upheld throughout the ages.
 
As to whether Father Brown was Catholic or not, we cannot say. Only the Pope or Bishops can excommunicate someone. If he died in communion with the See of Rome, he was a Catholic. The final state of his immortal soul is known only to God. We should prayer for him and all the dead.
 
40.png
RedDeathsMask:
With God, all things are possible, even the Virginal Birth that the Magesterium has upheld throughout the ages.
Click to expand...
I agree that the Church has maintained the “in-partu-ite’s” version of Jesus’ entrance into the world for a long, long time.

However, I personally suspect that it is “pulling a Liberius.”

The “in-partu-ites” version of Jesus’ birth really is very “Gnostic.” The Gnostic had their chief god, First Man, dwelling in a pleroma, a kind of glowing cloud. In the Protevangelion, the book cited by the “in-partu-ites” for support, Jesus appears inside of a glowing cloud at Mary’s feet instead of being born. The Gnostics would also enjoy the symmetry generated by a non-mortal birth of Jesus: Many of them maintain that Jesus was an unsuffering spirit on the cross. They would argue that a materialization on Earth at His birth implies a handy-dandy de-materialization on the cross.

I have no idea why the Magisterium wars with Scripture so violently on this issue. It really, really does.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Just as Protestants ascribe to *sola scriptura, *many Catholics unfortunately functionally subscribe to sola popa.

You’re doing it right now, and denying that you are doing it.

Thank you for so effectively dramatizing my point.
Click to expand...
  1. Why does it matter, I “thought” Dei Verbum said scripture is only inerrant on matters of salvation. Does salvation matter if Jesus birth was miraculous or not? I think not, so I can interpret scripture anyway I want.
  2. What does the scripture say? “Whoever listens to you listens to me**. Whoever rejects you rejects me**. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
I’d rather let the authority Christ left interpret the scriptures.
 
RedDeathsMask said:
1. Why does it matter, I “thought” Dei Verbum said scripture is only inerrant on matters of salvation. Does salvation matter if Jesus birth was miraculous or not? I think not, so I can interpret scripture anyway I want.
  1. What does the scripture say? “Whoever listens to you listens to me**. Whoever rejects you rejects me**. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
I’d rather let the authority Christ left interpret the scriptures.
Click to expand...

It’s not as simple as you think.

Pope Liberius rejected his own position on Arianism.

So, do you agree that he rejected Christ?

It’s not simple.

Even the business of letting the authority Christ left interpret Scripture is problematic.

The authority Christ left also reserves the right to interpret its own interpretations.

When do we start listening?

Remember: The Bible, itself, is an expression of the Magisterium.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
It’s not as simple as you think.

Pope Liberius rejected his own position on Arianism.

So, do you agree that he rejected Christ?

It’s not simple.

Even the business of letting the authority Christ left interpret Scripture is problematic.

The authority Christ left also reserves the right to interpret its own interpretations.

When do we start listening?

Remember: The Bible, itself, is an expression of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
And the Magesterium determined what is the Bible.
 
Having drifted off topic this thread is now closed.
Thanks to all who participated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top