- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,617
- 10,765
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Someone posted a quote like this on a similar thread recently - quoting Raymond Brown.
Raymond E. Brown:
Now I will continue the quote with parenthetical inserts - mine.
Raymond Brown continued:
The above is a statement from Raymond (that I DO agree with in many respects) is clear and concise.
We can anticipate that those opposing his stated view will surely try to dismiss this statement that DOES exist by imagine a negating-context for it that DOES NOT not exist.
==============
"In 1881 the Paulists established The Columbus Press in New York City. In 1913 The Columbus Press became the Paulist Press. It published books which explained the teachings of the Catholic faith"
===============
Isn't it interesting that the very key points where non Catholics differ with Catholic Marian doctrine - are the ones that Catholic scholars such as Brown - admit are not found in the Bible, and have no historicity in origin as if NT saints saw or wrote about such things?
In other words - logically - one must first BE a member of the Catholic church to then believe certain doctrines that have no source in the NT text or historic record from reliable first century sources.
===================
Raymond Brown --
en.wikipedia.org
"An American Sulpician priest and prominent biblical scholar. He was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote studies on the birth and death of Jesus.
"Brown was professor emeritus at Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York City, where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.["
"Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and again in 1996. 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)
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.
We can anticipate that those opposing his stated view will surely try to dismiss this statement that DOES exist by imagine a negating-context for it that DOES NOT not exist.
==============
"In 1881 the Paulists established The Columbus Press in New York City. In 1913 The Columbus Press became the Paulist Press. It published books which explained the teachings of the Catholic faith"
===============
Isn't it interesting that the very key points where non Catholics differ with Catholic Marian doctrine - are the ones that Catholic scholars such as Brown - admit are not found in the Bible, and have no historicity in origin as if NT saints saw or wrote about such things?
In other words - logically - one must first BE a member of the Catholic church to then believe certain doctrines that have no source in the NT text or historic record from reliable first century sources.
===================
Raymond Brown --
Raymond E. Brown - Wikipedia
"An American Sulpician priest and prominent biblical scholar. He was a specialist on the hypothetical Johannine community, which he speculated contributed to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and he also wrote studies on the birth and death of Jesus.
"Brown was professor emeritus at Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York City, where he taught for 29 years. He was the first Catholic professor to gain tenure there, where he earned a reputation as a superior lecturer.["
"Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and again in 1996. 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)
Last edited:
