What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, you are missing the point…The apostles said things which they did not write down, but it is begging the question to assume that the PV of Mary was included in those unrecorded things. The question we are asking here is whether the PV of M is part of the inspired teaching of God that was passed on.

I have not missed the point of your statement when you wrote:

First, you will need to provide us with those exact teachings that Paul gave the Corinthians…word for word from the Greek and, of course, your source…Once you have done that, we can see if your church has held those teachings “just as they were passed on”, or if those teachings were changed and others were fabricated.

This was made in response to a comment someone else made about sola scriptura. I realize that this thread is about the PVoM and NOT sola scriptura, but your statement is still incorrect. Even if the Catholic Church were to have failed to follow the teachings, this shortcoming would not abrogate the commandment enjoined on us.

No…it shows that you can’t even begin to show what the apostles taught (outside of the Bible)…let alone demonstrating that they taught the PV of M. It is all based on your one big step of faith which assumes that whatever the CC teaches was once taught by the apostles.

Or derived from that teaching.

Your cohorts sing a similar chorus:

It seems that they are inclined to reason in a circle that goes like:

…because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error, the Catholic Church must be right when it claims that the promise that the “Gates of Hell will not Prevail” means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error and therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

But it is not based on circular reasoning at all. Instead, the argument goes more like this:

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name. Since the Church cannot teach error in the name of Christ, the Church must be infallible.

Consequently, we do not claim that the Catholic Church is infallible simply because she says so; instead we know the Church is infallible because of a line of reasoning that leads to this inescapable conclusion.

Oh…one more point: This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

Protestants have no independent means of proving the inspiration of the Bible; instead they rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church in order to know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Unfortunately, many are loathe to acknowledge this fact while others are simply ignorant of their debt to the Catholic Church.

 

[aspirant]

“It is clear, the faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves it, it is true.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is merely a subclass of (a)…it would still have to be taught and passed on somehow, but you seem to be suggesting that there would/could be few if any written accounts that needed to be lost.

How is “never written to begin with” a sub-class of “lost”?

Why would that be likely? The suggestion that “There was no need to write it down b/c everyone took it for granted”…seems like question begging again.

The headlines of the world’s leading newspapers tomorrow morning will not be screaming, “Sun Rises Again As New Day Dawns”. We’re all kind of assuming that the earth’s rotation has continued while we slept.

 

[aspirant]

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, “Believe the Catholics,” their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you. If you say, “Do not believe the Catholics,” you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel. Again, if you say, “You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus,” do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? …To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all…

What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

 

[Joshua27]

Did they misunderstand Mary when she was confused about being pregnant and not having ‘known’ a man yet?​

BTW, did the Holy Spirit misunderstand what the OT said?

You are confusing the new testament writers with the old testament writers. the gospel writers relied on the old testament as sacred scripture just like we rely on the gospels as the same. Anyone can draft a new narrative to prove a truth they believe in. The Gospel writers believed in a virgin birth out of a misunderstanding of the sacred scripture of their time

This translation was not, as you seem to think, original to the gospel writers. Jews translated the Hebrew almah in Isaiah 7 into Greek as “virgin” (parthenos) between the 3rd and 2nd centuries before Christ. This was the translation used by Greek-speaking Jews from that time through the first century AD, and highly esteemed among Jewish scholars. So when the Gospels were written, they simply reproduced what the accepted Greek translation of Isaiah already said.

“…??..” This is exactly my point, that it’s not original, but a mistranslation.

-There is at least one important reason that Mary had to be a virgin until she gave birth: because there would be no other way to prove that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

What if I said that YOU were conceived by the Holy Spirit of God? Would it be true or false, because - truly - before you knew yourself, God knew you. Before he laid the foundations of the world he knew you… and if all things come from God then you and I were also conceived into life by the Holy Spirit who is God.

 

[aspirant]

This is exactly my point, that it’s not original, but a mistranslation.

You missed my point. Ancient Jews, for hundreds of years before the time of Christ and through it, did not consider it a mistranslation at all. You assert mistranslation, ancient Jews considered it a legitimate Greek translation of Isaiah.

if all things come from God then you and I were also conceived into life by the Holy Spirit who is God.

But not in the sense that Jesus is said to be.

 

[Joshua27]

You missed my point. Ancient Jews, for hundreds of years before the time of Christ and through it, did not consider it a mistranslation at all. You assert mistranslation, ancient Jews considered it a legitimate Greek translation of Isaiah.

[Ok, I now understand your point…]

I agree. Jews considered it legitimate [Note that I expressed that “it’s their truth”]. But aren’t clarifications to old truths often discovered and corrected in humanity? Wasn’t the world once flat as a “truth” until new exploration corrected this? We welcome such discoveries in humanity except when it comes to aspects of our faith (which I would think whould strengthen our faith even further).

It was recently discovered that ancient scribes made a few mistakes in translating ancient scripture [but you and I have been through this on another thread so I won’t waste room here]. One such mistake was the translated word “virgin”. One of the reasons for this mistranslation was to attempt to uplift the Jewish people who were STILL waiting for a “warrior” messiah to deliver them during their subjugation at the hands of other nations (Greeks & Romans at the time).

But not in the sense that Jesus is said to be [born from the Holy Spirit].

…and I guess this is at the heart of the Trinitiatian faith, so I’ll just leave this alone for now. But does believing in this make Messiah any less the Son of God, or does it otherwise serve in elevating us as His brothers and sisters, and children of God (something Messiah wanted in the first place)?

 

[aspirant]

Wasn’t the world once flat as a “truth” until new exploration corrected this?

Language does not work like physics. People who actually know and speak the languages generally understand them much better than people thousands of years later.

It was recently discovered that ancient scribes made a few mistakes in translating ancient scripture… One such mistake was the translated word “virgin”.

This was not a scribal error. It was a deliberate translation choice made by people who knew the original and target languages, accepted by other people who knew both the original and target languages, long before Christ was born. Neither the Hebrew Isaiah (which says almah) nor its Septuagint translation (which says parthenos) a “recent discovery.” They’ve been in continual use since the time they were written.

But does believing in this make Messiah any less the Son of God

Believing what?

 

[Joshua27]

This was not a scribal error. It was a deliberate translation choice made by people who knew the original and target languages, accepted by other people who knew both the original and target languages, long before Christ was born. Neither the Hebrew Isaiah (which says almah) nor its Septuagint translation (which says parthenos) a “recent discovery.” They’ve been in continual use since the time they were written.

So what you’re saying is they deliberately (not accidentally) chose to translate the hedrew word “alma” (meaning “young woman”) into the greek word for “virgin” (“parthenos”) even though the hebrew word “bethulah” (which means “virgin”) was not used in this particular prophetic reference in Isaiah, though “bethulah” is used in other old testament passages?

Believing what?

Dokimas said:

-There is at least one important reason that Mary had to be a virgin until she gave birth: because there would be no other way to prove that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Then I said:

What if I said that YOU were conceived by the Holy Spirit of God? Would it be true or false, because - truly - before you knew yourself, God knew you. Before he laid the foundations of the world he knew you… and if all things come from God then you and I were also conceived into life by the Holy Spirit who is God

.

Then you said:

But not in the sense that Jesus is said to be.

Finally I responded:

But does believing in my point above

] make Messiah any less the Son of God, or does it otherwise serve in elevating us as His brothers and sisters, and children of God (something Messiah wanted in the first place)? *

 

[aspirant]

So what you’re saying is they deliberately (not accidentally) chose to translate the hedrew word “alma” (meaning “young woman”) into the greek word for “virgin” (“parthenos”) even though the hebrew word “bethulah” (which means “virgin”) was not used in this particular prophetic reference in Isaiah, though “bethulah” is used in other old testament passages?

Yes. And this translation was accepted as a legitimate one, before Christ was born, by Jews who knew both the original and target languages.

does believing in [you and I were also conceived into life by the Holy Spirit who is God] make Messiah any less the Son of God

No. But if one believes your or I are conceived by the Holy Spirit in the same sense that Messiah was, that belief is erroneous.

 

[Joshua27]

Yes. And this translation was accepted as a legitimate one, before Christ was born, by Jews who knew both the original and target languages.

So the change was not accidental…Can you give me a few sources to read? I’d be interested to consume this knowledge even further.

[This is my optinion which I’m entitled to] Then the corruption was as old as the Jewish Scribes; prophetic is the passage Jeremiah 8:8.

No. But if one believes you or I are conceived by the Holy Spirit in the same sense that Messiah was, that belief is erroneous.

I’ll leave this alone too.

 

[Dokimas]

You are confusing the new testament writers with the old testament writers. the gospel writers relied on the old testament as sacred scripture just like we rely on the gospels as the same. Anyone can draft a new narrative to prove a truth they believe in. The Gospel writers believed in a virgin birth out of a misunderstanding of the sacred scripture of their time You mean you think Mary didn’t tell the story of the conversation she had with the angel and the Gospel writers just wrote what they were told?

What if I said that YOU were conceived by the Holy Spirit of God? Would it be true or false, because - truly - before you knew yourself, God knew you. Before he laid the foundations of the world he knew you… and if all things come from God then you and I were also conceived into life by the Holy Spirit who is God. I’ll believe Mary’s story not a story about me.

 

[Good_Fella]

So the change was not accidental…Can you give me a few sources to read? I’d be interested to consume this knowledge even further.

There is no difference between “a woman not sexually known” (almah) and “a virgin” (bethula). Almah is never used in Scripture to refer to young women who are married or had pre-marital relations with men. Isaiah is unconsciously prophetically alluding to the fact that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and had no relations with him before Jesus was born.

I recommend you read this article by Avram Yehoshua for starters.

http.//www.seedofabraham.net/virgin.html

PAX :heaven:

 

[aspirant]

So the change was not accidental…Can you give me a few sources to read? I’d be interested to consume this knowledge even further.

Any decently written histories of the Septuagint translation should be helpful.

 

[Dokimas]

Originally Posted by Joshua27
You are confusing the new testament writers with the old testament writers. the gospel writers relied on the old testament as sacred scripture just like we rely on the gospels as the same. Anyone can draft a new narrative to prove a truth they believe in. The Gospel writers believed in a virgin birth out of a misunderstanding of the sacred scripture of their time You mean you think Mary didn’t tell the story of the conversation she had with the angel and the Gospel writers just wrote what they were told?

What if I said that YOU were conceived by the Holy Spirit of God? Would it be true or false, because - truly - before you knew yourself, God knew you. Before he laid the foundations of the world he knew you… and if all things come from God then you and I were also conceived into life by the Holy Spirit who is God. I’ll believe Mary’s story not a story about me.

Let me try to clarify what I was saying cuz it looks a bit confusing.

My first point was that Mary most likely told her story and her story was written down by the Gospel writers. I doubt they misunderstood her story.

Point two using your example of me and my conception my response was that I’ll believe Mary’s story and disbelieve your story about my conception. There are reasons Mary had to be a virgin before Jesus was born. There is NO reason for me to be conceived from a virgin.​

God does know us in our mothers’ wombs as He knew Jeremiah and He formed us as He formed David in his mother’s womb ( Ps 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb.)

 

[Radical]

Randy Carson:

But it is not based on circular reasoning at all. Instead, the argument goes more like this:

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work. … Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen, his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

The foregoing (including the bits that I didn’t repost) is a very popular approach among Protestants as well…IMHO the weakest part of it is the bit in red. Our evidence wrt the fate of his disciples is not nearly as good as our evidence wrt Christ himself.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

“Rudiments” is an interesting word. An acknowledgement that developments have occurred…and tis somewhat ironic that Mary (and all her special attributes didn’t make your short list). Setting aside the fact that not any where near all Catholic historians would agree that such “rudiments” were put in place at the start, it would seem that you are back to that circle again => the developments from the rudiments are without error because the Catholic Church can’t teach error and we know the Catholic Church can’t teach error b/c it developed that teaching from the rudiments.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name. Since the Church cannot teach error in the name of Christ, the Church must be infallible.

The bit I placed in red is just floating out there on its own without any historical verification. Where is your support for the assertion that the alleged authority to teach in the Lord’s name can not involve error? Would it be Matt 16:18-19? I don’t see any explicit mention of teaching authority, let alone an infallible one…and so it seems that you are again thrown back to that old circle:

…because the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error, the Catholic Church must be right when it claims that the promise that the “Gates of Hell will not Prevail” means that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error and therefore, we know that the Catholic Church can’t officially teach error…

Consequently, we do not claim that the Catholic Church is infallible simply because she says so; instead we know the Church is infallible because of a line of reasoning that leads to this inescapable conclusion

Inescapable? Please. The line of reasoning that you provide is popular among all stripes of conservative Christians until you get to the “rudiments” and at that point you can’t even say that (anywhere near) all Catholic historians and theologians agree that the rudiments were there at the start. It is as inescapable as Klink’s Stalag 13. After that, you are still left with the need to infer (yet again) that certain bible passages mean what you require them to mean so that you can get to your circular support.

Oh…one more point: This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

To be precise, the conduct of Christ and the apostles told the first generation of Christians that the Jewish scriptures were inspired. Then local churches such as the one at Corinth preserved letters that they received from an apostle. Such a letter was copied and circulated b/c of its apostolic authority. By the time any hierarchical group got together to make an “official” declaration with respect to the canon almost all the work had been done…for about 95% or more of the Bible, the “infallible authority” did nothing but follow what those w/o “official authority” had already determined. Regarding the other 5% it got some things right and some things wrong. I can easily live w/o that contribution…and it is something that shouldn’t be left unreviewed.

Further, your identification of the modern Catholic Church as the same church that “gave” us the Bible is highly questionable. The city of Rome can trace its history back 2000+ years, but that hardly makes modern Rome the same city as the one that Augustus ruled. Sure it has the same name and continuity of location, but Augustus would barely recognize a thing…practically all of the “rudiments” have been burried under debris and later structures.

 

[Radical]

Aspirant (quoting GKC):

What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? …The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; …But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus);…

Good old GKC must have been having a bad day when he penned this…If one actually looked at the procession, one would see that it started out with 13 rather rag-tag men who had to borrow a donkey when one of them wanted a ride. That group handed the scrolls containing the gospel to the next group in the procession. Now, about 1900 miles further down the road the procession looks a whole lot different. There are high head-dresses, flowing robes, thrones, etc to carry along in luxury vehicles and castles and palaces to occupy when not on parade. When appearance has been so dramatically altered, I would think that it would natural to wonder whether the substance behind the appearance has also changed. It seems that GKC couldn’t envision that the scrolls contained a map of a parade route that was considerably different than the one he was standing on at the time.

. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

If we wanted to bring GKC’s work up to date for us today, we would have to add that now a number of priests and scholars in the procession are also saying, “Hey, we have wandered off the parade route set out in our scrolls!”

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Rudiments” is an interesting word. An acknowledgement that developments have occurred…and tis somewhat ironic that Mary (and all her special attributes didn’t make your short list). Setting aside the fact that not any where near all Catholic historians would agree that such “rudiments” were put in place at the start, it would seem that you are back to that circle again => the developments from the rudiments are without error because the Catholic Church can’t teach error and we know the Catholic Church can’t teach error b/c it developed that teaching from the rudiments.

No, and it is obvious that the logic has escaped you. The existence of the Catholic Church as well as its authority and understanding of its own infallibility are derived from the fact that it can be historically demonstrated that Jesus Christ is God. Jesus promised to build ONE church upon Peter, the rock, and He gave the leaders of that Church the same Authority that He Himself had been given by the Father. Finally, He promised that this Church would never be prevailed upon, etc. My argument is based solidly upon scripture and not merely upon the Church’s own claims about herself.

The bit I placed in red is just floating out there on its own without any historical verification. Where is your support for the assertion that the alleged authority to teach in the Lord’s name can not involve error? Would it be Matt 16:18-19? I don’t see any explicit mention of teaching authority, let alone an infallible one…and so it seems that you are again thrown back to that old circle:

He who hears you hears me. (Luke 16 something)

Inescapable? Please. The line of reasoning that you provide is popular among all stripes of conservative Christians until you get to the “rudiments” and at that point you can’t even say that (anywhere near) all Catholic historians and theologians agree that the rudiments were there at the start. It is as inescapable as Klink’s Stalag 13. After that, you are still left with the need to infer (yet again) that certain bible passages mean what you require them to mean so that you can get to your circular support.

I think the error of your “circular” argument has been demonstrated.

To be precise, the conduct of Christ and the apostles told the first generation of Christians that the Jewish scriptures were inspired. Then local churches such as the one at Corinth preserved letters that they received from an apostle. Such a letter was copied and circulated b/c of its apostolic authority. By the time any hierarchical group got together to make an “official” declaration with respect to the canon almost all the work had been done…for about 95% or more of the Bible, the “infallible authority” did nothing but follow what those w/o “official authority” had already determined. Regarding the other 5% it got some things right and some things wrong. I can easily live w/o that contribution…and it is something that shouldn’t be left unreviewed.

Thanks for sharing.

Further, your identification of the modern Catholic Church as the same church that “gave” us the Bible is highly questionable. The city of Rome can trace its history back 2000+ years, but that hardly makes modern Rome the same city as the one that Augustus ruled. Sure it has the same name and continuity of location, but Augustus would barely recognize a thing…practically all of the “rudiments” have been burried under debris and later structures.

Would the doctor who delivered you recognize you as being the same person that he spanked when you took your first breath? Would Washington, Jefferson & Madison recognized our current government as being the same country that they founded?

 

[aspirant]

If one actually looked at the procession, one would see that it started out with 13 rather rag-tag men who had to borrow a donkey when one of them wanted a ride. That group handed the scrolls containing the gospel to the next group in the procession. Now, about 1900 miles further down the road the procession looks a whole lot different.

Naturally.

When appearance has been so dramatically altered, I would think that it would natural to wonder whether the substance behind the appearance has also changed.

Chesterton agrees. But the man on the street has not been commissioned and authorized in the way the people received into the procession have been. To doubt them is to doubt the whole, including the rag-tag 13, for it is they who have testified to the rag-tag 13.

 

[Radical]

Chesterton agrees. But the man on the street has not been commissioned and authorized in the way the people received into the procession have been. To doubt them is to doubt the whole, including the rag-tag 13, for it is they who have testified to the rag-tag 13.

So when the Arians were leading the procession, to doubt any aspect of their teaching was to doubt the whole, including the rag-tag 13, for it is they who have testified to the rag-tag 13?

Further, one can question whether changes have been made to the NT (which testifies to the rag-tag 13) w/o needing to doubt the whole. IMHO this is a healthy endeavour which counteracts what Craig Evans calls a brittle fundamentalism. When we come across something such as the “long ending of Mark” we should go with the evidence and not simply assume that the long ending is original and inspired. B/c of the wealth of manuscript evidence that we possess we can be very confident that what we have today is very close to the original. The desire and hope is to be as close to the original as possible. Regarding Catholic tradition the situation is very different. It is acknowledged that (at a minimum) developments have been made from the “rudiments”. If additions can be made to a fixed record such as the Gospel of Mark, then one can envision how additions could have easily been made to “traditions” that are undergoing “developments” and do not enjoy the fixed boundary of a written record…and, of course, one must question whether these “developments” are merely developments or if they are novelties. To not ask that question is folly.