Posted on 05/02/2017 6:07:21 AM PDT by Kaslin
It’s one thing when a humanist attacks the Bible. That’s expected. It’s another thing when a humanist attacks a Christian denomination for using the Bible as a moral guide. But that’s exactly what humanist author Clay Farris Naff did on the Huffington Post on April 29th.
Naff was upset that the highest court of the Methodist Church struck down the consecration of Bishop Karen Oliveto, since her only infraction was being married to another woman. How, he wondered, could the church punish her for love?
He writes, “To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain. How can love be wrong? How can love enfolded in commitment and fidelity be wrong?”
The answers are simple and self-evident. Love is not always right, even when it’s “enfolded in commitment and fidelity.”
A man who no longer loves his wife may now love his female co-worker, but that doesn’t make his adultery right.
As a thinking man (which he clearly is), Naff should be able to understand that conservatives have reasons other than “ancient prejudices” for opposing gay marriage. After all, there were ancient cultures that celebrated homosexuality, yet they still recognized marriage as male-female only.
That’s because marriage has had a specific function and purpose through the millennia, and it’s not just “ancient prejudices” that cause many of us to reject its redefinition. Or is it only prejudice that believes God designed men for women and women for men? Or is it only bigotry that believes it’s best for a child to have a mom and dad?
Naff asks, “What possible harm can her marriage cause? Not even the claim of setting a ‘bad’ example holds water. People do not choose their spouses on the example set by clergy. If they did, there’d be no Catholic children, and poor, sultry Elizabeth Taylor could never have married even once.”
Actually, many people do follow the examples set by their leaders (including clergy). As for Naff’s argument regarding Catholicism, wouldn’t he argue that the sins of some pedophile priests have been especially heinous, because they are looked to as religious leaders?
Of course, I’m not comparing Oliveto’s “marriage” to her partner to a priest abusing boys. I’m simply saying that clergy have a special responsibility to set good examples. Their bad examples have a wider, ripple effect.
Naff then focuses on the Bible itself, using the same hackneyed, pro-gay arguments that have been refuted time and again. (For example, he claims that Paul’s categorical prohibition against male and female homosexual practice in Romans 1 is merely “a tirade about some unnamed people who turned their backs on God and indulged in, er, Roman-style orgies”).
Not only so, but he seems oblivious to the idea that, when Methodist leaders speak about “Christian teaching” on homosexuality, they do not refer exclusively to the Bible. They’re speaking in general about the unanimous teaching of virtually all branches of Christianity for nearly 2,000 years. And they’re speaking in particular about the clear teachings of the Methodist Church throughout its history.
But this is not important for Naff, since he feels there’s a much deeper problem with the Methodist Church: hypocrisy. Why, he wonders, does the Church not ban divorce the way it bans homosexual practice?
The answer is that, according to Scripture, there are some legitimate causes for divorce, and these are recognized by the Methodist Church. It is the question of remarriage that is in question, but that’s a question he fails to ask. (He could have made a better argument had he addressed that question.)
Either way, Naff isn’t calling for a church ban on divorce. Instead, he explains, “I am trying to help you see that the Bible may be many things — historical treasure, poetical comfort, and sacred scripture — but as a moral guide, it is hopeless. Some claim to follow its commands literally, but they deceive themselves. No one can do so, for the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions.”
So, it’s fine if we take the Bible to be “sacred scripture,” as long as we realize that it’s “a hodgepodge of contradictions and morally obscure or outrageous injunctions,” not to mention “hopeless” as “a moral guide.”
Thanks but no thanks.
That kind of “sacred scripture” is neither sacred nor scripture. Why anyone would take comfort in its words and find guidance for life if, in fact, the Bible is what Naff describes it to be?
After launching a few more (weak) salvos against the Scriptures, Naff writes, “Look at the Bible with fresh eyes, and you’ll find the record of ancient peoples who, lacking any police force, detectives, or proper jails, did their best to construct rules for getting along with each other and used the fear of God to enforce them. Look even closer and you’ll find that those in power often bent the rules in their favor. I suppose God might have wanted the people to heap silver, gold, and fatted calves on their priests, exempt them from any real work, and give them a retirement plan (Numbers 7 - 8), but I find it more likely that the priests themselves heard the Word of God that way.”
Put another way, this is not the Word of God, so don’t treat it as the Word of God.
Instead, Naff states, “I’ve shown that the United Methodist Church is interpreting the Bible to privilege the heterosexual majority while sanctimoniously applying ancient ‘laws’ in a questionable way to Bishop Oliveto. But more important, I hope I’ve shown that Methodists, and all other religionists, would do well to abandon the effort to apply scriptural codes to contemporary life. Draw inspiration, by all means, but recognize that the hard work of thinking through right and wrong remains a moral duty for us all.”
In truth, Naff did not prove his points at all, let alone demonstrate them in such fashion that Methodist leaders should feel beholden to follow his counsel.
But it is not merely Naff’s attack on the Bible that falls short. It’s his logic that falls short as well, since, if he is right in his description of the Bible, there’s no reason for the Methodist Church (or any church) to exist. There’s not even a reason for a single synagogue to be found on the planet if what we call sacred Scripture is merely a compendium of human ideas, many of them flawed, and none of them perfectly inspired.
In short, if Jesus is not the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead, Christians are believing lies. End of subject. And if the Torah was not given by God through Moses, Jews are believing lies. That’s all that needs to be said.
Not only so, but if the Bible is not a moral guide, it cannot be a spiritual guide, since it purports to tell us who God is and what He requires from us, His creation.
I do understand Naff’s concerns about religious fundamentalism, which he has articulated elsewhere. But he fails to understand that: 1) the Bible’s moral witness is quite coherent when studied holistically and in-depth; 2) scholars have answers for the questions he has raised, along with many more; and 3) there are solid reasons, both practical and moral, to stand against homosexual “marriage.”
What is lacking, then, is not the inspiration of Scripture or the wisdom of Scripture or the moral authority of Scripture. What is lacking is the understanding of human beings (including Naff), which is exactly why we need God’s Word.
Human reasoning alone will always fail us. God’s Word will never fail.
Complete nonsense. Scripture is clear that Mary and Joseph were legally married husband and wife and that they did not have relations until after Jesus was born. Scripture then goes on to record His brothers names in more than one place.
The entire early Church, in every record we have, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. Then came Helvidius (around 380 A.D.), the first Christian on record to claim that Mary had children. In his treatise on the perpetual virginity, Jerome meticulously refuted Helvidius's theory as "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world".
Those arguments are completely without merit. The author is acting as if the idea that Mary had sex with Joseph was a new idea when it is COMPLETELY and TOTALLY supported by a clear and simple reading of the WORD OF GOD.
"novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world".
A married woman having lawful sexual relations with her lawful husband is *wicked*?
And Catholics object when people rightly point out that the Catholic church presents sex as bad and evil, a sin? It does indeed send that message in a multitude of ways, this being one of the most subtle and effective.
Wide is the road and broad is the way that leads to destruction.
It doesn't matter if the whole world believes something if it contradicts Scripture. If it contradicts Scripture, it's wrong no matter who believed it, how many believed it and how long they believed it.
Well, we do know based on the context of the passages where His family is described.
As we all know, the use of the word "brother" in Scripture is not only used to refer to biological brothers but also to relatives (Genesis 14:14, 29:15), close friends (2 Samuel 1:26, 1 Kings 9:13) or even allies (Amos 1:9).
You need to cite your source for this.
From wikepedia:
The use of the word "brother" in Scripture is, in addition, not only used to refer to biological brothers but also to relatives (Genesis 14:14, 29:15), close friends (2 Samuel 1:26, 1 Kings 9:13) or even allies (Amos 1:9). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary
Yet we are dealing with the Greek in the NT. So again, context is your friend in how to understand this.
What we do know is that they were not sons of Mary. They are never termed 'sons of Mary', and they evidently didn't have the degree of kinship to take her into their homes.
While you are correct in noting we do not see the term "sons of Mary" the context tells us Joseph and Mary did have other kids of their own....by the natural way we all got here.
Matthew 1:25, when read in context, tells us Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born.
The key verb is ginosko (eginosken as used in the passage) meaning I come to know, learn, especially through personal experience.
It is the verb Mary used in Luke 1:34 in her reply to the angel..."How can this be since I do not know a man?"
A literal translation of Matthew 1:25 would render this as, "and not knew her until that she had brought forth a son."
Source: Helps word-studies and Bible Hub
In both cases the verb is meaning to know someone as in sex.
It can't mean they didn't know each other in never being introduced. A sexual reference is the only way this verb can be understood.
Neither Joseph or Mary had "known" each other in a sexual manner...until Jesus was born.
The Greek and the context of the passage is clear on this.
For the Catholic to continue to insist otherwise is to show a lack of understanding of the Greek and proper Biblical interpretation.
Except for the Gospel accounts of Joseph and Mary's other children and Paul in Galatians.
In addition, there was disagreement among the ECFs on this issue so the appeal to the ECFs fails.
2. Once again, you say "cite your sources" and I got the Biblical chapter-and-verses on the word "brother" from an email from my RCIA teacher colleague. Your sleuthing does nothing to de-Biblicize the Biblical facts.
3. Funny that "the context" tells YOU that Joseph and Mary had other kids of their own, but didn't tell Justin Martyr or Jerome or the Greeks or the Armenians or the Assyrians or ANY of the other early Christian exegetes and liturgists. I think your context app has been hacked.
4. If Mary was expecting to have normal relations with Joseph, she wouldn't have been totally perplexed when the angel said she would have a son. "But HOW....?" is not a question that is recorded to have occurred to Sarah or Hannah or Samson's mother or Elizabeth when they learned they would have unexpected pregnancies. They made the natural assumption that it would be by intercourse with their respective husbands.
If Mary at that point was deeply troubled, it would have to be either because (a)she did not know where babies come from (highly unlikely) or (b)she wasn't thinking to have relations with Joseph. She didn't know at that moment that she would become pregnant by the Holy Spirit.
5."Didn't have relations until.." doesn't mean they then had relations. "I didn't reject my mother until the day she died" doesn't mean I did reject her after she died. "He shall reign until I put all his enemies under His feet" doesn't mean that afterward, He then stops reigning. You are making a simple grammatical error here.
5. Your last statement implies that all Christians "lacked understanding of the Greek and proper Biblical interpretation" until the 16th century AD, which I find --- to put it kindly --- unpersuasive.
The citation of the ECF's does not fail, because Jerome demonstrates that Helvidius' (Helvetius') notion of Mary having other sons was a shocking novelty, it is rejected or ignored by all the churches, and it doesn't come up again for the next thousand years.
I should say, the next 1200+ years.
Seriously, ealgeone.
I don't think a Catholic wants to use this as an argument. If so, you wipe out a great deal of Catholic teaching on Mary.
Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?”... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
John 2:12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
1 Corinthians 9:4-5 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
Strong's Concordance
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
adelphos: a brother
Original Word: ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm
The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.
It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.
It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.
They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.
The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.
And it would not be *cousin*.
The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm
Strong's Concordance
suggenes: akin, a relative
Original Word: συγγενής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: suggenes
Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')
Short Definition: akin, a relative
Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.
Haven’t we been through this about 43 million times? It might take another million times,huh?
Mary was surprised by Gabriel's visit and his announcement to her.
Mary was a virgin at that point...we all agree on that.
Her question of the "how" came up preciesely because she was a virgin and she knew she and Joseph, nor with anyone else, hadn't had relations...they hadn't "known" each other as indicated by the verb.
Not based on the Greek.
I’m using that argument because I think you’re a Sola Scriptura guy. Are you not?
Well, duh!!! Come on. You can do better than that.
Sorry but that is beyond ridiculous.
Those women had been married a long time and had been having relations with their husbands.
Joseph and Mary, while still legally husband and wife, had not yet consummated their marriage, which makes Mary's question a perfectly reasonable one and the fact that those other women didn't ask perfectly reasonable.
No, it merely shows that she had not yet had sex with Joseph. It says NOTHING about future intent. She didn't ask how this would be since she didn't intend on ever knowing a man.
She did not ask how it was possible since she was planning to never have relations with her lawful legal husband.
And WHY would she get married is she had no intention of doing so.
As far as someone caring for her, if Jesus had cousins, she had other relatives who could take on that responsibility without going through with a sham of a marriage just for the facade.
5."Didn't have relations until.." doesn't mean they then had relations. "I didn't reject my mother until the day she died" doesn't mean I did reject her after she died. "He shall reign until I put all his enemies under His feet" doesn't mean that afterward, He then stops reigning. You are making a simple grammatical error here.
No, the grammatical error is the Catholic church's in perpetuating their myth. They want it to be true so bad, they make the grammatical error. Your examples do no fit with the meaning of the sentence in Scripture.
The fact that Joseph didn't do one action until another was completed doesn't mean he never did it. It means he waited until the first action was complete to do the other action.
That is a clear, plain, simple reading of Scripture.
He took Mary AS HIS WIFE as the angel commanded her and then had sex with her after Jesus was born.
Well, considering the Catholic church controlled access to the Bible so tightly, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there would be people in ignorance of what it said for so long.
So yes, as long as the Catholic church controlled the ownership and interpretation of Scripture, then it's entirely believable that all Christians would lack understanding of the Greek and proper Biblical interpretation.
There were yet living of the family of our Lord, the grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord, according to the flesh. (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. p84)
1 Cor. 9:4-5, "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
Paul makes clear distinctions here as to who is who. The Lord had brothers. They came from Mary.
We don't need a passage to say Joseph and Mary had relations for every kid they had.
Context...not RCC Tradition, is your key to understanding this issue...and others.
Good grief.
I am SURE Mary and Joseph did the dastardly, evil deed (sexual intercourse) If they didn't, I would like to know where their other children came from. I don't know, but maybe some people think kids come by kissing or holding hands.
What I wonder about, is why some consider Mary a perpetual virgin? I wonder if it means she would forfeit her demi goddess status?
 "The Atheist's Bible" |
 "The Anti-Bible" |
|
|
|
 "The Wicca Bible" |
 "The Satanic Bible" |
If it was just "your Greek vs my Greek," this volleying would be a waste of time, since neither of us is a native Greek speaker nor a Greek scholar. We're reduced to "your experts vs my experts."
What's decisive to me is that you won't find an actual Greek speaking Christian in two millennia who agrees with Helvetius' notion that Jesus' "brethren" all sprang from Mary's uterus. St. Jerome, the most eminent translator of his time, spanked Helvetius (Helvidius) for his invention of this idea as a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world".
In other words, it was a hypothesis which was previously unheard-of, which got very little traction at the time, and then wasn't broached for the next 1200+ years.
So the argument isn't ealgeone vs Mrs Don-o. It's ealgeone vs all Christendom ("the faith of the whole world.")
You write as if all the other Christians for millennia either didn't exist, or were too dumb to understand Greek. Even when it was (in many cases) their own language!
Nobody really "got" Greek until a handful of 16th-17th century Brits and Germans!
You can see why I find this unpersuasive.
I have one class remaining for a graduate level certificate in NT Greek from an accredited seminary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.