Historicity of Mary vs significant inference -- ie not in the Bible?

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,488
5,849
49
The Wild West
✟494,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I'm sure all of the world's roughly 1,350,000,000 (latest figures) Catholics (which for some reason doesn't include the world's 110,000,000 Anglicans) will be desolated to hear that.

Also remember the Orthodox, who number around 290,000,000 when we combine the total number of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (with the Eastern Orthodox being about 235 million and the second largest denomination, in between the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans, and the Lutherans are the fourth largest after the Anglicans, with around 90,000,000, and then in fifth place about 75,000,000 or so Reformed/Calvinist/Presbyterians not counting Particular/Calvinist Baptists whether SBC or some other denomination), followed by the Pentecostals and then the Oriental Orthodox if we want to break it down.

Also, the Assyrian Church of the East believes in the Dormition, despite Wikipedia having an article that claims otherwise; this is disproven however by an article on an official website of the Assyrian Church of the East and by their own liturgical calendar (August 15th is observed for commemoration of the Assumption, or Dormition, as the Assyrians and Eastern Orthodox call it).

And also the supposedly Roman Catholic author who Bob Ryan bases this article on is incorrect in claiming a lack of first century provenance for this belief. We have statements of the Apostles preserved in the Orthodox liturgy on what happened, and also we have relics of the clothing and secondary items of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but she, and our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, are the only major Christian saints of the first century where we have no bodily relics such as skeletal remains, and the reason for this is obviously because their bodies are in Heaven. There is no reason why, considering that St. Elias and St. Enoch were taken into heaven bodily, and St. Moses was assumed bodily after death, hence His presence at the Transfiguration of Christ, that our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ would leave His own mother to rot in a grave on Earth until His return, given that Christ our True God was physically closer to her than to any other human being, since she gave birth to Him, thus allowing Him to be human, and was a mother to Him; God the Logos by whom all things were made (John 1:1-3) suckled at the breast of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a woman who lived a sufficiently decent life that it was deemed appropriate for God the Holy Spirit to cause her to conceive of and bear the Only Begotten Son and Word of God in her womb, and then raise him to adulthood as His human mother, tending to his needs in childhood and being present at His crucifixion and being made the adoptive mother of St. John the Beloved Disciple and Theologian, who was the youngest of the Twelve Apostles and the only one not to be martyred but who rather reposed peacefully in our Lord.

This point I think should be especially important to Adventists, given their belief in the eschatological error of soul sleep, and given that their belief in the peculiar doctrine of the Investigative Judgement makes it clear that they believe that God experiences time the same way we do (since jesus Christ is God); it makes our Lord out to be very unpleasant that given that he spared St. Elias (Elijah) and St. Enoch and Moses from the grave, and Himself, that he would leave his own mother in a state of soul sleep and endure an absence from her that, given that Adventists are young Earth creationists, represents nearly a quarter of the entire time that this planet has existed, according to their cosmology. Indeed given the priority that Adventists put on the Ten Commandments, I would argue that for them to reject the doctrine of the Assumption or Dormition, which as far as I am aware Ellen G White never commented on, would constitute them causing our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ to have violated the commandment to honor His Father AND His Mother, since He is clearly not honoring His Mother, if He allows her to simply lie in the ground for two thousand years while having taken up into heaven three prophets who, while important, are not His mother, and who therefore He is not required to honor according to the Ten Commandments which He wrote, and also are less important than the Theotokos, in that it was by Her that our Lord became Human, while Saints Enoch, Elias and Moses merely testified to his coming, along with many other prophets, and God could have called others to serve in their role, but given the unique genealogical requirements the prophecy of Christ required of His mother, that she be a direct descendant of King David, and related to St. Anna so that John the Baptist would be our Lord’s cousin, no one other than St. Mary the daughter of Joachim could have served as his mother.*

*It is ironic to consider that the Restorationists and low church Protestants who argue that anyone could have been chosen to be the Mother of Christ are completely wrong on this point, because of the specificity of the prophecies of Christ’s birth and the requirements of His relationship to the Illustrious Forerunner; really no one else had the correct genealogy, and was married to an elderly widower with the correct geneaology who was willing to remain celibate, and was sufficiently closely related to St. Jesse as an ancestor and to King David and a cousin of St. Elizabeth the mother of the forerunner for it to work. Whereas on the other hand, St. Moses and St. Elias emerged as prophets, and while their background was important, as was that of St. Enoch, it was not central to their identification, because their arrival was not itself the center of prophecies, in that they were not Messianic figures; only Christ our God was, as His name implies, a Messiah whose arrival was foretold, and who would be identified, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, by his relationship to King David, and the circumstances of his birth, and so on; the Gospel of Matthew enumerates a large number of these prophecies by showing how our Lord fulfilled them, but it does not list all of them, for indeed, as Christ demonstrated for the Apostles, immediately before being known in the Breaking of Bread (the Eucharist) and ascending to Heaven, at the conclusion of the Gospel According to Luke, that all of the Law and the Prophets testified of Him; thus an actual list of all scriptural verses that foretell the Incarnation of God in the person of Christ Jesus would be equivalent in length to the entire Old Testament.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,488
5,849
49
The Wild West
✟494,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I met Raymond E. Brown. Talked with him. Read almost every book he ever wrote. I’ve got a copy of his PhD thesis. He was very careful in his words and his positions. It’s mostly the people not careful enough in reading him that try to make him say what he would never have intended to say. I am not a disciple of Raymond E. Brown by any means but I find the use of him in this thread to be specious silliness.

Thank you for clarifying that. This is unsurprising, given how I myself have been repeatedly misquoted, with my own words warped to say things other than what I meant, in one case a sentence of mine actually being truncated in quotation, which I remain very unhappy about, since by omitting the final portion of my sentence in the quotation, its semantics were changed with material affect.

It’s a bit like if someone said “I support the opponents of sexual immorality” was quoted as saying “I support the opponents of sex”, which is a type of misquotation I have personally encountered from some proponents of the LGBTQ+ movement who call themselves “Sex Positive,” the implication being that if you believe that sexual relations should occur only within heterosexual marriage, that you must hate sex and be opposed to people having sex, which I definitely am not, for I want people to get married, have large families, and enjoy the process of reproduction as Holy Matrimony is a great blessing that God as given us, which includes sex. Of course, other people are called to Holy Celibacy, possibly including myself; I have been for the past ten years trying to discern if I have a monastic vocation or am called to Holy Matrimony, but lately my health has been so bad I wouldn’t dream of burdening either brethren in a monastery or a wife with my broken down body. But there are some signs of improvement, for example, my blood pressure has returned to safe levels, and my doctor thinks I am starting to turn the corner, so hopefully, with any luck, the question of Holy Matrimony vs. Holy Celibacy will not in my case prove to be purely academic.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I met Raymond E. Brown. Talked with him. Read almost every book he ever wrote. I’ve got a copy of his PhD thesis. He was very careful in his words and his positions. It’s mostly the people not careful enough in reading him that try to make him say what he would never have intended to say. I am not a disciple of Raymond E. Brown by any means but I find the use of him in this thread to be specious silliness.
Nice - I will just quote verbatim in that case --

Someone posted a quote like this on a similar thread recently - quoting Raymond Brown.

Raymond E. Brown:

" Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information.
There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles;"​
glad we can agree on something.


Thank you for clarifying that. This is unsurprising, given how I myself have been repeatedly misquoted,
Glad we are all happy with verbatim quotes. Finally we can see a point of agreement.


It’s a bit like if someone said “I support the opponents of sexual immorality” was quoted as saying “I support the opponents of sex”,
I see your point -- good thing the verbatim quote in the OP is not an incomplete sentence or a statement where the meaning is not clear.

Glad it is not the "negating context missing " idea you have so clearly speculated for us.

Glad we can agree on something.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,488
5,849
49
The Wild West
✟494,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Glad we are all happy with verbatim quotes. Finally we can see a point of agreement.

I’m sorry, what now? Are you saying you have been misquoting me intentionally to get across some kind of point? Because I have never intentionally misquoted you or anyone else.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,621
16,414
Flyoverland
✟1,259,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Nice - I will just quote verbatim in that case --

glad we can agree on something.
Perhaps we agree on one quote. Why do you think that one quote 'makes your case'? To me it making your case is about as twisted as your thinking that 'the investigative judgement' is somehow a Scriptural thing.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,621
16,414
Flyoverland
✟1,259,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Nice - I will just quote verbatim in that case --
Actually, on further thought, given the quote mining methodology of the SDA generally, and the way you selectively quoted the Liturgist, I won't accept your 'quotation' without finding it for myself in context from totally non-SDA sources. So we, at present, agree on nothing at all.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Actually, on further thought, given the quote mining methodology of the SDA generally, and the way you selectively quoted the Liturgist, I won't accept your 'quotation' without finding it for myself in context from totally non-SDA sources.
I took it from a non-SDA source.

And of course - dismissing a source that we do have (as you have done) by imagining a negating context for it - that you do not have -- works for some low-information-readers , no doubt.

But not all of us fall for that. Many will agree.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I met Raymond E. Brown. Talked with him. Read almost every book he ever wrote. I’ve got a copy of his PhD thesis. He was very careful in his words and his positions. It’s mostly the people not careful enough in reading him that try to make him say what he would never have intended to say. I am not a disciple of Raymond E. Brown by any means but I find the use of him in this thread to be specious silliness.
Nice - I will just quote verbatim in that case --

Someone posted a quote like this on a similar thread recently - quoting Raymond Brown.

Raymond E. Brown:

" Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information.

still quoting Raymond Brown
There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles;"​
glad we can agree on something.

Perhaps we agree on one quote. Why do you think that one quote 'makes your case'?
Well for one, - I agree with Raymond's statement without complaining that it exists or trying to imagine a negating-context for it that does not exist.
To me it making your case is about as twisted as your thinking
imagine as you wish. But you will see that many on this thread who do not like what the statement says -- make a lot of noise in their objections to my agreeing with the quote.

I don't think it is the dark-mystery that you seem to speculate that it is for the objective readers.
that 'the investigative judgement' is somehow a Scriptural thing.
Jipsah has asked for (and avoided) the thread showing the scripture basis for the Investigative Judgment -- because he felt there might be a spec of truth to what you just said -- apparently the facts for the scripture basis for it was too much for him .

Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist

In any case I am not taking the bait to derail this topic with that one - so it is its own thread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I’m sorry, what now? Are you saying you have been misquoting me intentionally to get across some kind of point? Because I have never intentionally misquoted you or anyone else.
I find no point where I said "I am misquoting you" -- do you have such a statement from me - or is this your effort at creative writing , fiction?

Because I have never intentionally misquoted you or anyone else.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Our doctrines are based in scripture and have historicity in the actual teaching of Bible authors.

As this thread shows -- created at Jipsah's request -- Daniel 7 Pre-advent, Investigated out of books, Judgment affirmed by Adventist
..and Ellen White, who is where Investive Judgement comne from.

Better expound on Daniel 7, for us. I'm not seeing IJ there. Maybe I just lack imagination.
Step 1 - read the actual thread on that topic that you asked for repeatedly so far on this thread,
Step 2 -- point to some place where the Bible texts cease to explain the point from your POV ,, then post your response.

I don't see how this is even a little bit confusing.
It isn't.
Well then maybe we do agree on at least one thing.
You thought you'd found fodder for some good old "them bad Catholics..." posturing
I see a source that actually exists -- a Catholic source I am strongly affirming and some key details that you find "inconvenient" apparently. A source making a statement that I then dedicate an entire thread to discussing. A Catholic you apparently strongly differ with even though this is a well established Catholic source speaking honestly about his own church --

And now you "wish" to make the case that affirming such a Catholic source is "bad catholic posturing".

I find a certain paucity in logic in your position at that point.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,621
16,414
Flyoverland
✟1,259,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Someone posted a quote like this on a similar thread recently - quoting Raymond Brown.
Interesting that you don't bother to name that someone. You lift that someone's quote but don't name that someone. AND you don't lift the source that someone may or may not have had for the quote in the first place. Did that someone have a source other than some SDA quote machine?

If, IF, sources matter to you , I would think you would have had some link to the original quote in your original post.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,621
16,414
Flyoverland
✟1,259,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I took it from a non-SDA source.

And of course - dismissing a source that we do have (as you have done) by imagining a negating context for it - that you do not have -- works for some low-information-readers , no doubt.

But not all of us fall for that. Many will agree.
I went back to your original post and you claimed right there that you got the quote from an unnamed 'someone'. Who? How do I know that unnamed 'someone wasn't an SDA source? And the quote is claimed to be from Raymond E. Brown. How do I know unless I know from which book or article it came from. Am I missing something? Which book or article by Raymond E. Brown did that quote come from. Pardon me if I don't take it on faith that it's an accurate quote without being able to actually look it up.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,621
16,414
Flyoverland
✟1,259,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
In any case I am not taking the bait to derail this topic with that one - so it is its own thread.
Let's restart with you providing EXACTLY where the quote in your OP is from. That at least, is NOT derailing the topic. It is central to the topic.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,488
5,849
49
The Wild West
✟494,308.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I find no point where I said "I am misquoting you" -- do you have such a statement from me - or is this your effort at creative writing , fiction?

Because I have never intentionally misquoted you or anyone else.

Forgive me, but clearly you did intentionally truncate this sentence of mine:

Also @BobRyan there is the problem that the radical version of Nuda Scriptura you advocate clashes with Sola Scriptura as defined by Martin Luther, as our most pious and excellent friend @MarkRohfrietsch can attest, a definition received by Anglicans and traditional Methodists (see the Anglican tripod and the Wesleyan quadrilateral), and in that system, tradition is acceptable as long as it does not contradict with Scripture.

As we see here:

Also @BobRyan there is the problem that the radical version of Nuda Scriptura you advocate clashes with Sola Scriptura

false.

My version is seen in Acts 17:11 and in Mark 7:7-13.
And yours?

The problem is that this intentional truncation had the effect of a misquotation, because it changed the semantics of my sentence.

My claim was that what you call Sola Scriptura is not what Martin Luther called Sola Scriptura; I expressed this using less succinct language, and you truncated my sentence in such a way so that it would appear, to someone who had read your reply but not the original comment, which would include a great many people, that I had said “the radical version of Nuda Scriptura you advocate clashes with Sola Scriptura.”

And you also truncated several other sentences of mine, and then replied inconsistently based on an incorrect assumption as to what was said.

So I will of course accept your explanation that you did not intentionally misquote me, as I don’t believe you would do that, but it does seem that in each instance where you have implied that I said something that I did not, by virtue of the content of your reply, it appears to have been connected to you truncating a sentence. Therefore I really must reiterate my requirement that you not truncate my posts when replying to them. Please don’t do it. Otherwise it would be impossible for us to continue to enjoy our debates and fellowship on CF.com, and I have valued our friendship we have cultivated since 2019, and have been looking forward to seeing you when I travel to Georgia (I am hoping to visit the Delta Airlines Museum in Atlanta and dining at the rotating restaurant during the course of doing some business in an adjacent state this autumn.

On another note, you made an interesting claim:

Nothing is infallible unless it is spoken "ex Cathedra" and Pius XII did not say he was speaking "ex Cathedra". IN fact no Pope ever claimed that - but the one that comes the closest is Pope Clement XIV July 21, 1773.

@chevyontheriver @Michie @Valletta @concretecamper @Reader Antonius

To your knowledge, is that correct? Because the general consensus seems to be that the two uses of the infallible statement were the ex cathedral promulgations of the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Leo IX and of the Assumption (which already was dogma in the Orthodox churches and the Assyrian church, and which did have a feast in the Catholic church, I think, so perhaps you might clarify that for us) by Pope Pius XII

Also my Catholic friends, I hope you have a blessed Pentecost Sunday! I am hoping to visit a Tridentine mass this morning, as I am not well enough to travel out in the desert to one of my own parishes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Interesting that you don't bother to name that someone. You lift that someone's quote but don't name that someone
I am not allowed to pull someone into a post where they are not already posting.
. AND you don't lift the source that someone may or may not have had for the quote in the first place. Did that someone have a source other than some SDA quote machine?
I know that imagining things that don't exist is compelling source of conversation for some - but in the end it falls flat. You can't seriously think that what you are making up will fare well when more details get posted. In the mean time you have the full reference for Raymond's statement here.
If, IF, sources matter to you , I would think you would have had some link to the original quote in your original post.

You post like someone who did not read the OP with its reference.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Forgive me, but clearly you did intentionally truncate this sentence of mine:
I have often truncated long verbose statements to get the core I am addressing highlighted and respond to it.


The problem is that this intentional truncation had the effect of a misquotation, because it changed the semantics of my sentence.

My claim was that what you call Sola Scriptura is not what Martin Luther called Sola Scriptura;
I said nothing about that comparison.
I expressed this using less succinct language, and you truncated my sentence in such a way so that it would appear, to someone who had read your reply but not the original comment, which would include a great many people, that I had said “the radical version of Nuda Scriptura you advocate clashes with Sola Scriptura.”
If your actual intent was to say "your well established , commonly accepted Sola Scriptura - called Nuda Scriptura (a statement you have never used Bob) clashes with Martin Luther's version but otherwise is well accepted by many Christian denominations" -- then I missed your text saying such a thing

But it appears you can't find it either. If your only point was that Luther's form is at some tiny detail different from the Acts 17:11, Mark 7:7-13 form I keep promoting, I missed it in your post.
And you also truncated several other sentences of mine, and then replied inconsistently based on an incorrect assumption as to what was said.
Well that is the accusation - but to make it work you have to actually show an actual problem as you attempted to do above. Without it, you only have a baseless accusation that I make it appear you hold a position which you do not hold (which I never intend to do).

Bottom line Liturgist - I am more than happy to note all the real places where you and I really exist and it is my opinion that there are plenty of such examples -- I am in no need of making up fake ones.
So I will of course accept your explanation that you did not intentionally misquote me, as I don’t believe you would do that
Indeed.

My interest is to compare real differences not imaginary ones.
I have valued our friendship we have cultivated since 2019, and have been looking forward to seeing you when I travel to Georgia (I am hoping to visit the Delta Airlines Museum in Atlanta and dining at the rotating restaurant during the course of doing some business in an adjacent state this autumn.
I would be very happy to meet with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,633
10,776
Georgia
✟930,373.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Let's restart with you providing EXACTLY where the quote in your OP is from. That at least, is NOT derailing the topic. It is central to the topic.
Agreed it is reasonable and is on topic.

Well then ... lets "read" the OP shall we?

Someone posted a quote like this on a similar thread recently - quoting Raymond Brown.

Raymond E. Brown:

" Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information.
There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles;"​

Now I will continue the quote with parenthetical inserts - mine

Raymond Brown continued:

"it is based on the Church’s insight (inference?, suggestion?) that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well."​
(i.e. the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected the origin/birth of his mother)​
"Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight (inference, suggestion) about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.
==========================
The above is a statement from Raymond (that I DO agree with in many respects) is clear and concise.
Now let's repeat that last section slowly because apparently I was mistaken to think that everyone here would understand it to be the reference. The post says:

"Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103."

Now let's see if everyone here recognizes that as a "reference".
I am patient - I can wait.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,621
16,414
Flyoverland
✟1,259,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Someone posted a quote like this on a similar thread recently - quoting Raymond Brown.

Raymond E. Brown:

" Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information.
There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles;"​

Now I will continue the quote with parenthetical inserts - mine.

Raymond Brown continued:

"it is based on the Church’s insight (inference?, suggestion?) that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well."​
(i.e. the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected the origin/birth of his mother)​
"Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight (inference, suggestion) about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.
So I go to my bookshelf and pull down that book and I find (without the histrionic underlining and red text and bold text and italic text and (parenthetical) (additions)) so typical of SDA sceed the following footnote:

"Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight (inference, suggestion) about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate."

Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

That is, without histrionics, what Raymond E. Brown actually had published in 1975. One cannot always trust what a Seventh Day Adventist says about the Catholic Church. I have long ago learned that it is necessary to verify the claims with actual source material. I have also learned to ask whether the SDA person quoting such material has actually read the surrounding material so as to have a contextual understanding. In this case I would ask if you had read pages 84 to 108 of that book, the chapter titled 'The Meaning of Modern New Testament Studies for an Ecumenical Understanding of Mary'? If not, considering you have based this whole thread on a footnote by Raymond E. Brown from that chapter, why not?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,621
16,414
Flyoverland
✟1,259,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
He was the Auburn Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies at the Union Theological Seminary in New York City" (IE not considered a heretic by the Catholic Church - for those who were trying to grasp that sort of straw)
You do know that UTS is not a Catholic institution, but a Protestant one? So his being a professor there says zero about his particular Catholic creds. There is another famous (somewhat infamous) Catholic, Charles Curran, who teaches at Southern Methodist University, whose credentials to teach at any Catholic institution have been removed. Because he teaches at a Protestant institution itself says zero about his particular Catholic creds, which he no longer has in this case. I have no evidence that Brown's credentials were ever removed, as was the case with Curran.

You cite Raymond E. Brown as if we should all fall down on our knees and worship him or something. Few Catholics ever did. I had a brief moment of temptation in that regard until I heard him speak in the early 1980's. Since then I have been able to see him as a rebel, a smart one, stepping ever so close to the lines in pushing for higher criticism. Make no mistake. He would have been no friend of the SDA and would have happily ripped you guys a new hole or three. His defining characteristic would be anti-fundamentalism. If you think you align with him, maybe on one issue, but he would spend the day ripping you up. With a smile on his face.

He is passe in Catholic circles these days. The more liberal folks have moved beyond him and left him behind in the dust. The more conservative folks have gleaned a few points from him but are not going down his path. And for the most part never did. He is as irrelevant on this matter of the historicity of Mary as Wolfhart Pannenburg, whose thesis he adopted in the chapter you quoted from.

If you want a slightly more relevant book about Mary you might try 'Mary in the New Testament: A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Catholic Scholars' edited by the same Raymond E. Brown, Karl Donfried, Joseph Fitzmyer, and John Reuman. (1978) Fortress Press, Philadelphia PA. Better yet 'Redemptoris Mater' by pope John Paul II. Redemptoris Mater (25 March 1987) | John Paul II
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Jipsah
Upvote 0