That’s fine Donna - I’ll be away for most of next week, so I just wanted to get back to you before I’ll be off the air for some time myself. Take as long as you need.

Tim
Thanks and take care
Donna

Hi Rick

Re your post #766.

Its really hard to know where to start with this response.  I might just take it word by word.

How can any statement be other than an airing of a personal exploration? As a for instance, Einsteins theory of relativity was based on his personal exploration of the matter.  Perhaps you mean that they are opinions uninformed by empirical data?  If so, you should say so.

Your statement that there is a “correct” interpretation of John 6 is equally astounding.  Who gets to say it is correct?  The pope maybe?  Or do you or Martin get a guernsey?  I am pleased you state it is an interpretation, but if it is an interpretation, how can it be right?  If it is an interpretation, how do you think that fits with the idea of scripture alone, especially as Martin relies on extra scriptural referents?

The fact that Martin convincingly answered every question contains two underlying assumptions.  First is that you found his explanation convincing, I didn’t.  Furthermore you may just be stating that his explanation was internally coherent but that doesn’t mean diddly squat.  The explanation will still contain underlying assumptions and these are what needs to be questioned.  If you want an example, see if you can find a Marxist analysis of something.  No doubt it will be internally consistent and plausible, but it will still be based on refutable assumptions such as the labour theory of value and historical determinism.

I expect that Martin is a biblical scholar from his knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, but probably embedded in a strong ideological environment, suggested to me by his strong support of a particular perspective, although he is very cagey about giving information away.  It might also be that his style of argument and enquiry is typical of a type of enquiry.  He seems to focus on detail but not to want to engage on higher level topics such as the meaning of history and varying epistemologies.  I am not sure if this is because he feels unsure at this level or whether he just doesn’t see it as meaningful.  On the other hand I am more interested in what leads people to interpret data in a particular way rather than head banging on meaning of the data with the inherent presupposition that there is a right answer. 

On that point, logical positivism says we can’t prove things only disprove them, and that is in the area of things that are testable by experiment.  Martin and I could both make a falsifiable statement about each others position, but there is no way of testing it, apart from hoping that some new text arises.  A falsifiable statement about my position would be did Jesus mean the whole thing to be a symbol?  This could be tested by asking him.  If he said yes, then my position is clearly falsified.  If he said yes then Martins position is falsified.

I am waiting to hear from Martin on the resurrection.  His response on baptism was more interesting for what it didn’t say than for what it did say.  I am hoping that he sees the resurrection as spiritual thing rather than as an actual historical event, as I would consider this a consistent treatment of the gospels.  If he treated it as real, I would be interested to hear how he discriminates it from the eucharist and from baptism.

Silence can mean admitting defeat but it also could mean that someone has given up on flogging a dead horse.  One of the problems is that martin and myself haven’t even agreed on the rules of engagement. We are conducting the debate on different terms so it is no wonder we keep missing each other.

cheers

John

Sorry to get back to the topic “World Youth Day Sydney 2008”, but I wonder if this event has provoked the Catholic youth who attended the event, to decide to become priests?

I did feel, from listening to the Pope’s words, that this may have been a general aim of the conference?

Hi Tim
My long overdue reply!  The best way for me to respond to you is in parts, otherwise it gets a bit messy.  Firstly I will address the issue of purgatory and then later I will address the perpetual virginity of Mary issue.  So let’s go back to your response to the Catholic position on purgatory:

Tim Allen - 17 September 2008 02:29 PM

Donna Green - 13 September 2008 06:35 PM

Hebrews 4:27 in no way contradicts the Catholic position.  In fact, it supports 1 Cor 3:13-15 in being the judgement we individually received when we die.  It seems illogical to me for Paul to mean (in verse 14 of 1 Cor 3) that we will be in heaven but still suffering loss.

Yes, but it is the process of entering heaven that is under view here. Both the one who builds well (v.14) and the one who builds poorly (v.15) are saved, so it is not their actions that save them – only the foundation upon which they build. It might be illogical for you that the one who builds poorly is in heaven but suffering loss, but how else do you read verse 15?

Tim, the thing being tested is their works.  That is the key message in the passage.  I agree that it is not the actions that save them, but God’s grace, however, we are talking about impurities that cling to us after we die.  It is clear that Paul understands that you cannot enter Heaven with these.  So, if we enter purgatory, we are saved but as through fire, which allows us to reach our final destination.

Donna Green - 13 September 2008 06:35 PM

Paul is clearly talking about those of us, who die and are not yet made perfect, will be made perfect.  Not in heaven.  Heaven is perfection itself.  How can anything imperfect abide in something so perfect.  Phil 1:6 reiterates this by saying Jesus will perfect us.  Tim there can be no completion or perfection in Heaven.  We can not truly enjoy Heaven with “stuff” still clinging to us.

Absolutely – we are made perfect as we enter heaven, as the fire of judgement that Paul refers to removes all that is not destined for heaven. The fire comes on the day, and then heaven is entered. No need from these verses for a time lag or a place for the bad works to be paid for. They are judged and disposed of, and only the foundation of Jesus remains. If there is no foundation, well … then there is no hope. And no second chances.

Who talked about a time lag.  We are only limited here on earth by time.  So, I assume from your statement “the fire comes on the day, and then heaven is entered.  This is exactly what I am establishing i.e. before heaven a purification process.  Your first statement, whether you like it or not, is what the doctrine of purgatory is.

Donna Green - 13 September 2008 06:35 PM

Even if we cannot agree on the existence of purgatory, I think the doctrine of faith alone looks a little shaky for you.  1 Col 1:24 flies in the face of “all I have to do is believe and I will be saved”.

No, as I explained in my previous post, Col 1:24-29 is not talking about Paul’s own salvation, but the salvation of others who have not yet heard the gospel. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone – in its fullest understanding – is not in the slightest bit shaky for me, IMO.

Perhaps you could explain what the fullest understanding of faith alone is, considering the only time alone is in the same sentence as faith is when James says we are not justified by faith alone.

Regards
Donna

p.s. for some reason I cannot get those quotes happening well.  Incompetency I guess.  Hope you follow it.

Hi Tim
Continuing our discussion on the perpetual virginity of Mary I had a couple of points to make in response to some of your objections.  I won’t comment on every point you make but will try and summarize what I believe you are objecting to.  In some of my responses I will probably repeat what I have said previously but hope that my ‘second go’ will make it a little clearer.

Point 1: Mary’s First born.

First born does not refer to the eldest of a family.  It denotes the opening of the womb. 

Point 2:  Luke 1:34 “How shall this be since I know not man”.

This is a direct translation from the Greek.  If Mary’s intention was to ‘know man’, she would not be surprised.  Mary said “How SHALL this be..”.  Mary knew how babies were made.  Her question was relating to her vow of chastity.  Mary was already betrothed to Joseph at this stage, so if she intended to have marital relations, then she would not have responded with such surprise.

Point 3:  Mary at the foot of the Cross:

As I already stated, Jesus would not have entrusted Mary to John and vice versa if Mary had other children.  You disagree by suggesting that perhaps Jesus’ brothers were not followers yet.  Jesus knew all men, so to suggest that he did not know that those brothers would be followers, is a little suspect.  Would Mary abandon her other children?  No decent mother would do that.  And what about John’s mother.  Don’t you think she would be a little upset if John abandoned her to look after Mary.

Point 4:  Mary, spouse of the Holy Spirit:

The language the angel uses when he says that Mary would be overshadowed is marital language.  We see similar language in Ruth 3:9.  Joseph knew that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and he knew that he could not have relations with her.  The angel does not use the phrase for marital union “go in unto” (Gen. 30:3-4, 16), the phrase used is ‘paralambano gunaika’ which means leading her into the house as a wife but not co-habitating with her. 

We see in 2 Sam 16:21-22; 20:3 that David took charge of the women but did not go in unto them.  They remained widows until the day of their deaths.  Here it is clear that once someone has defiled someone, even the husband is not allowed to enter.  I am not saying that Mary was defiled by the Holy Spirit.  I am pointing out that Joseph understood the law and so obeyed it completely.

Point 5:  Brothers of Jesus

For a good analysis of who the ‘brothers of Jesus’ are go to newadvent.org.  They have an article “Bretheren of the Lord”.  The Church fathers are unanimous (except Tertullian who later became an heretic) that Jesus was an only child.  In Eusebius - Book 2 Chap 2-5 - he has an explanation of who James is in Gal 1:19.  He states that Clopas was Joseph’s brother and that Simeon was the Son of Clopas.

In John 6:42 - this verse points that the Jews thought Joseph was Jesus’ father as well.  The Jews were denying the divinity of Christ.  So we can hardly use this as evidence that Jesus had uterine brothers. 

More to follow
Regards
Donna