The Baldie Vs Mariology

[robrecht]

That they are contradictory is an interpretation as such. Where as the two genealogies are historically true, then there is a correct understanding and interpreation of them.

This is an interpretation based on the assumption of biblical inerrancy. The basic meaning of the Greek is not ambiguous.

[Tyrel]

The argument against your view is simple: If God had wanted us to think of Mary as the new Eve, he would have told us so. He did not. As you have shown, the early church may have felt differently about her, but that just demonstrates the many inputs into the thoughts and practices of the early church, other than God's Word.

I suppose my response would go something like this: (i) God has told us so through his Church, (ii) God has given us enough in scripture that we can believe Mary is Eve, but are not 'forced to' - in much the same way as one might say that God has provided enough evidence of himself that one can come to believe that God exists, but one is not 'forced to' that conclusion, and (iii) The statement "IF God had wanted us to think of Mary as the new Eve, THEN he would have indicated so more clearly in scripture" seems to me to be hopelessly speculative. This last point is really the key point for me, it seems like we are in no position to appraise the truth of those kinds of conditional (possibly counter-factual) statements, or at least we cannot decide them with any reasonable confidence. Consider, for instance, that there may be a counterfactual like this "If God had indicated more clearly in scripture that Mary is the second Eve, then fewer people would come to a knowledge of God" - that may be a strange counter-factual, but for all we know it could be true. If it were, then we would expect that God would refrain from any clearer indication in scripture about Mary being the second Eve. We just don't know enough to say with any confidence what God would do. Notice we could play the same 'trick' with any doctrine, from the Filioque, to the two wills of Christ, to the rejection of Ontologism; if it were true, and God wanted all men to believe it, then God would have clearly noted it in Scripture. These are all abstruse matters of systematic theology (as important as they are). What we can say is that given how the Bible was written, the majority of it's readers have come to believe in the Filioque, the two wills of Christ, and Mary's Immaculate nature (and so on). It looks empirically like if God wanted people to believe those things, he would have written the Bible pretty much exactly like he did, ceteris paribus.


Finally, just as a note, the 'other than' which I've italicized in your statement above may be question begging. More importantly, it may also not be question begging, which would imply that the early Church Fathers were doing theology with the resources of more than just Scripture (i.e., perhaps 'Tradition'). That, if true (which I think it is) is a point which has great significance for my claim that "if Christianity is true, then Catholicism is true" - and I note this relevance only in passing.

This seems like a spiritualization of "confirmation bias."

That's fair enough (I take it you're sharing an autobiographical fact about yourself), and you may be right (that it is a form of confirmation bias). I don't think it is, but in any case the possibility of it being confirmation bias does nothing to dismiss it out of hand. It certainly is an interesting impression though.

"Catholicism is true" wants for clarification. Certainly Catholicism is true about some things. But if your claim glosses as "Catholicism is inerrant" then I must demur. And if it doesn't, then it remains to be discussed, for each particular item, whether Catholicism is correct.

You are quite right, "Catholicism is true" does want of some clarification. Perhaps instead of defining it as "all and only the doctrines of the Catholic Church are true" or something to that effect, I will try to give a more modest definition which will entail something like that one. It would go something like this: the necessary and sufficient conditions for the statement "Catholicism is true" to be true are (i) that one of the 'essentials' of orthodox Christian belief is that there is a Church on earth with the Apostolic authority to teach, infallibly, concerning Christian doctrine, and (ii) that this Church is extensionally identical to the Catholic Church.

[One Bad Pig]

Your argument fails to take into account that "prayer" is not used in the sense I am talking about.

Well, this is simple enough. Prayer to the saints is not used in the sense you are talking about. I've been trying to get that point through to you for several posts now.

[Tyrel]

This is an interpretation based on the assumption of biblical inerrancy. The basic meaning of the Greek is not ambiguous.

I'd like to offer a thought or two. First, the Genealogies are not unambiguously contradictory. Second, I think we should adopt an Aristotelian Hermeneutic - presume consistency unless and until that position becomes untenable. Here, it clearly isn't even in the province of implausible that these Genealogies are complimentary. One needn't assume Biblical inerrancy in order to come up with a plausible interpretation according to which both Genealogies are harmonized.

[robrecht]

I'd like to offer a thought or two. First, the Genealogies are not unambiguously contradictory. Second, I think we should adopt an Aristotelian Hermeneutic - presume consistency unless and until that position becomes untenable. Here, it clearly isn't even in the province of implausible that these Genealogies are complimentary. One needn't assume Biblical inerrancy in order to come up with a plausible interpretation according to which both Genealogies are harmonized.

They are clearly contradictory in the simple sense of each text. More complicated and creative attempts to reconcile them were indeed motivated out a desire to reconcile the differences, not always by an assumption of biblical inerrancy, but at least a desire for both accounts to be true. I bet Aristotle would agree with me about the Greek. I will make it a point to ask him in the sweet by and by. Unless you die at a young age, I will surely know his answer before you. There are much greater forms of harmony than twisting the plain meaning of texts to try and harmonize them.

[Tyrel]

They are clearly contradictory in the simple sense of each text. More complicated and creative attempts to reconcile them were indeed motivated out a desire to reconcile the differences, not always by an assumption of biblical inerrancy, but at least a desire for both accounts to be true. I bet Aristotle would agree with me about the Greek. I will make it a point to ask him in the sweet by and by. Unless you die at a young age, I will surely know his answer before you. There are much greater forms of harmony than twisting the plain meaning of texts to try and harmonize them.

I think it may have gone the other way around; I think the earliest Christians didn't see any important contradiction between the Genealogies in these two accounts, and it became an issue later, catalyzing harmonizations like Tatian's Diatessaron. However, putting aside Aristotelian hermeneutics, don't you think the Lukan caveat "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli," which appears nowhere else in that Genealogy but with Joseph, might be an indicator of something? It seems to me that, at the very least, it undermines the idea that the Greek is unambiguously contradictory. What do you think?

[robrecht]

I think it may have gone the other way around; I think the earliest Christians didn't see any important contradiction between the Genealogies in these two accounts, and it became an issue later, catalyzing harmonizations like Tatian's Diatessaron. However, putting aside Aristotelian hermeneutics, don't you think the Lukan caveat "He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli," which appears nowhere else in that Genealogy but with Joseph, might be an indicator of something? It seems to me that, at the very least, it undermines the idea that the Greek is unambiguously contradictory. What do you think?

Sure, it's an indication that Jesus was (literally by law or by custom ἐνομίζετο, note the root νόμος, ie, custom, law) considered to be the son of Joseph because Joseph accepted him as his son. The more crucial point is what comes next, Joseph was 'of Eli'. This is the normal way of saying that Joseph was the son of Eli. There's nothing in the text about Levirite marriage or Eli adopting Joseph. It is Jesus who is adopted by Joseph. There's also a reason why Luke places the genealogy here. Jesus is considered to both the son of Adam through Joseph and the Son of God, as announced at his baptism. The Greek could not be any clearer. It is wrong for people to sully this beautiful text by adding foreign ideas that Luke never intended.

[foudroyant]

Well, this is simple enough. Prayer to the saints is not used in the sense you are talking about. I've been trying to get that point through to you for several posts now.

And stil no example from the Bible of praying to the departed.

[One Bad Pig]

And stil no example from the Bible of praying to the departed.

So? The books of the Bible were not written to be a complete instruction manual for the Church; they were written to address specific situations, and do not pretend to contain all that Jesus said or the Holy Spirit communicated. They are authoritative as far as they go, but relying on them alone is what has given us hundreds of Protestant sects.

[foudroyant]

So not one recording of a prayer to anyone who has departed. Thanks for the admission.

The Bible teaches what is conatined therein makes the believer "complete/adequate/perfect" (2 Timothy 3:17)...but you say they are still lacking.

If everyone were to silently pray to Mary at the same time and almost all of them were not totally genuine in what they prayed would she fully know that?

[Tyrel]

Sure, it's an indication that Jesus was (literally by law or by custom ἐνομίζετο, note the root νόμος, ie, custom, law) considered to be the son of Joseph because Joseph accepted him as his son. The more crucial point is what comes next, Joseph was 'of Eli'. This is the normal way of saying that Joseph was the son of Eli. There's nothing in the text about Levirite marriage or Eli adopting Joseph. It is Jesus who is adopted by Joseph. There's also a reason why Luke places the genealogy here. Jesus is considered to both the son of Adam through Joseph and the Son of God, as announced at his baptism. The Greek could not be any clearer. It is wrong for people to sully this beautiful text by adding foreign ideas that Luke never intended.

Wouldn't it be more beautiful if it were true?

I have more to say but I think I'll bite my tongue - this isn't really the right thread, is it?

[robrecht]

Wouldn't it be more beautiful if it were true?

I have more to say but I think I'll bite my tongue - this isn't really the right thread, is it?

I did not say it was not true. Those who add their own ideas into the text are the ones who implicitly assume it is not true unless they make their additions to make it true. Don't waste your energy biting your tongue. Learn Greek, prove me wrong on the basis of the actual text. You'll thank me for it in the long run, maybe not until after I'm long dead and gone, but I guarantee you will thank me for it. Assuming your in this for the long term, of course.

[One Bad Pig]

So not one recording of a prayer to anyone who has departed. Thanks for the admission.

Why would I claim something that's not there?

The Bible teaches what is conatined therein makes the believer "complete/adequate/perfect" (2 Timothy 3:17)...but you say they are still lacking.

You do realize, I hope, that Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures there. Timothy could hardly have known the New Testament "from his youth" as it hadn't been written yet. Context is not unimportant.

If everyone were to silently pray to Mary at the same time and almost all of them were not totally genuine in what they prayed would she fully know that?

As I told you before, it doesn't matter. When I ask a poster on TheologyWeb to pray for me, do they "fully know" if I'm "totally genuine"? No. Will that necessarily stop them from praying for me? I doubt it.

[foudroyant]

Why would I claim something that's not there?

You do realize, I hope, that Paul was referring to the Hebrew scriptures there. Timothy could hardly have known the New Testament "from his youth" as it hadn't been written yet. Context is not unimportant.

As I told you before, it doesn't matter. When I ask a poster on TheologyWeb to pray for me, do they "fully know" if I'm "totally genuine"? No. Will that necessarily stop them from praying for me? I doubt it.

Then why would you believe something that is not there?
Asking someone who has not departed to pray for you has biblical precedent. Asking someone who has departed to do the same has zero biblical precedent.
Indeed, if you asked another person to pray for you while billions others silently asked the same person to pray for them about various needs there is no way that person could fully understand all the needs of every person.

With God it is possible but with anything/anyone else it is not.

[Leonhard]

Then why would you believe something that is not there?

The same way we believe a lot of other doctrines which are not explicitly taught in the Bible, but are implied. Such as voluntary substance addiction being immoral, even though what is only specifically mentioned is that drunkenness is bad.

Asking someone who has not departed to pray for you has biblical precedent. Asking someone who has departed to do the same has zero biblical precedent.

The people in Heaven are alive and are quite capable of praying.

Indeed, if you asked another person to pray for you while billions others silently asked the same person to pray for them about various needs there is no way that person could fully understand all the needs of every person.

There's a couple of hidden assumptions made during this which almost no theologian would grant, especially not the last one: 1) Saints have roughly the same abilities as mortal humans, the process of meeting God has left them more or less unchanged. 2) In order for someone to pray for you, they have to know everything about the request. 3) There's time in Heaven which corresponds to time on Earth so that one minute of Earth-time equals one minute of subjective Heaven-time.

With these three assumptions its pretty clear that anyone would get swamped in prayer requests as the angels carry them up to you, and even if they got one, wouldn't know what to pray for. None of these assumptions seem well defended. Its always been taught, and its clearly implied in the scripture, that we won't merely be restored to the naturally pure state of Adam and Eve, we'll be raised to supernatural glory. I have no problem seeing the saints given far greater mental abilities in order to more fully participate in God's triune nature and praise him. Secondly, even if they were still more or less the same in terms of abilities, they're in Heaven. If need be they have an eternity to consider even a single second of Earth time, since time doesn't apply to Heaven.

And finally saints, while I think they understand far more of a prayer request and what to pray for, than anyone on Earth does, no more need to be omniscient about the prayer request than you have to be in order to pray for someone else.

With God it is possible but with anything/anyone else it is not.

So why do you ask other people to pray for you? If it doesn't matter if people pray on your behalf, what's the point?

You keep repeating a claim that Catholics believe the saints are the ones doing things instead of God. They're petitioning God for graces on our behalf. Exactly the same as what you do when you kneel and pray for your family before going to bed, or for anyone who asked you to pray.

The way you repeat your accusations, even when they've been answered, makes me think you've already made up your mind about this and you're not really paying attention to what's being said. Its fine enough if you want to discuss, but then at least interact with the points offered to you.