Can someone go through all the evidence for the perpetual virginity of mary for me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter blue_skies_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Her perpetual virginity POINTS TO WHO Jesus was.
Yes, all of the four Marian Dogmas point to who Jesus was/is.

“Immanuel” is thought to be “God with us”, so even that says that the baby this virgin has is none other than God.

Jesus, the Bread of Life, the High Priest, the Law Giver is God. Think about those three things–bread (manna), rod of Aaron (representative of the high priest) and the law (Ten Commandments). Sounds a little like the items kept in the Old Testament Ark. (In fact, Mary has been referred to,over the ages, as the Ark of the New Testament–even the Bible in Revelations 11:19 and Revelations 12:1 alludes to it.)

Now think how the Old Testament Ark was treated. Like any ordinary vessel? No righteous Jew would even think of doing so. And how much more would Mary be honored since she actually carried God Himself. So I think that Mary’s virginity (which was prophecized in the Bible) would naturally continue because of who Jesus was/is.
 
You don’t know that, you can’t possibly know that. The bible was written by men. You can assert that it is “gods” written word “inspired” by the holy spirit through men, or whatever. But so many holy books make that claim.
The Bible is unique among all so-called “holy books.” Here’s why.
  1. Over 40 men wrote the Bible in a period spanning some 1,500 years. These men came from different cultures, towns and backgrounds, some having limited access to a part of the work done by the others, some having no such access, yet their writings maintain an amazing consistency. There is absolutely no dissonance, no contradiction, but perfect harmony.
In his book, Inspiration and Authority in Scripture, Dr. Rene Pache says of the Bible: “To what can one attribute this unity running through the whole Bible: unity of vision, structure, message and doctrine – in spite of the long centuries and the many individuals used as instruments for its completion? To this question there can only be one answer: In reality Scripture has but one author, the Holy Spirit.”
  1. The Bible claims to be the Word of God.
  2. The Bible claims God will preserve it. And it has been preserved through the ages intact.
    Sir Frederic Kenyon, in his book “Our Bible and Ancient Manuscripts” writes: “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.”
  3. The Christ of the Bible claims to be the Son of God.
  4. The Bible’s record of historical events is accurate. No other “holy book” tells of so much history that covers such a long a period of time and without a single event disproved by archaeology.
Says British historian Paul Johnson in his book, The Quest for God: “…The science of modern archaeology and historical philology actually provides verification of the most ancient biblical texts.” Archaeologist Nelson Glueck concluded that, “no archeological discovery has ever been made that contradicts or controverts historical statements on Scripture.”

Author John Elder comments about how the science of archaeology had much to do with tipping the scales, in many people’s minds, back in favor of biblical credibility. He writes: “It is not too much to say that it was the rise of the science of archaeology that broke the deadlock between the historians and the … Christian. Little by little, one city after another, one civilization after another, one culture after another, whose memories were enshrined only in the Bible, were restored to their proper places in ancient history by the studies of the archaeologists… Nowhere has archaeological discovery refuted the Bible as history” (Prophets, Idols, and Diggers, 1960, p.16).

U.S. News and World Report, on its August 24, 1981 issue reported that many archaeological discoveries throughout the 1960s and 1970s were “affirming that the Bible is more historically accurate than many scholars thought.”

Frank Gaebelein, author and general editor of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, has remarked that “the attitude of suspended judgment toward the Bible difficulties… is constantly being vindicated, as archeology has solved one Biblical problem after another, and as painstaking re-examination of discrepancies has finally led to answers.”

One only needs to get into a serious, in-depth study of the biblical record to discover its historical accuracy. In his book, Why I Believe, D. James Kennedy talks about Sir William Ramsay:

“One of the most notable conversions to the Bible was Sir William Ramsay. He was an atheist, and son of atheists. He was wealthy and proudly bore a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Oxford University. He gave his whole life to the study of archeology so he could refute the Bible. He finally departed to the Holy Land, with his chief aim to refute the book of Acts.

“After 25 years of work, he became so impressed with the accuracy of Luke, its writer, that he finally concluded it was an exact account even to its smallest details. In his attempt to disprove the Bible, Sir William Ramsay discovered hundreds of historical facts which confirmed the Biblical account. Finally, in one of his books, he shook the world of the Bible critics when he confessed he had accepted Christianity.”
  1. The Bible is accurate on its statements of scientific facts. S. Maxwell Coder and George F. Howe, in their book, “The Bible, Science and Creation” contend, “The Bible is the only ancient book that is accurate in all scientific details. Other ancient holy books from the East include legends and errors too childish for consideration. Even comparatively modern books like the Koran abound in historical and chronological blunders.”
  2. The Bible tells of what will happen in the future. Its prophecies have been accurate and not one has failed. Prophecy is in fact the best proof of the inspiration of the Bible.
I can understand your skepticism about the Bible being God’s written Word. Even professing Christians, especially Catholics, have a hard time believing the Bible to be truly the infallible Word of God, especially so in the areas of science and history where they seem to find contradictions in its revelation. But that doesn’t mean the Bible is erroneous. The problem is man’s faulty understanding. The Bible says it could not be understood by just anybody who studies it, no matter how scholarly and educated that person may be. It is only understood by people who have God’s Holy Spirit – the true Christians. Mainstream Christianity is not true Christianity that is why it fails to understand Scripture.
 
There you go again–insulting the millions of Eastern Catholics who like the Latin or Roman Rite Catholics belong to one Church (and making at least me recall Luke 15:10, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” The name is “Catholic Church” or just “Church” (as in Matthew 16:17 “But if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church or 1 Timothy 3:15 “the church” of the living God (is) the pillar and ground of the truth”.)
Hi, sorry again. I didn’t mean to insult anybody. I’ll be careful next time. But why only “the church” when it isn’t complete? It’s like saying “the bank.” You wouldn’t know whose bank or which bank. There are many different banks just like there are many different churches. Wouldn’t it be better to include the name of the owner? We say the Bank of America, or the the Royal Bank of Scotland, so we can identify the owner of the bank. You could also say the Church of God to identify the owner of the church. In fact 1 Timothy says just that: “the church of [the living] God.” And many other verses give this name of the true Church.

Acts 20:28 : “to feed the church of God…”
I Cor. 1:2 : “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth…”
I Cor. 10:32 : “nor to the church of God.”
I Cor. 11:22 : “despise ye the church of God.”
I Cor. 15:9 : “because I persecuted the church of God.”
2 Cor. 1:1 : “unto the church of God which is at Corinth…”
Gal. 1:13 : “I persecuted the church of God…”
I Tim. 3:5: “How shall he take care of the church of God?”
 
The Bible is unique among all so-called “holy books.” Here’s why.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
I can understand your skepticism about the Bible being God’s written Word. Even professing Christians, especially Catholics, have a hard time believing the Bible to be truly the infallible Word of God, especially so in the areas of science and history where they seem to find contradictions in its revelation. But that doesn’t mean the Bible is erroneous. The problem is man’s faulty understanding. The Bible says it could not be understood by just anybody who studies it, no matter how scholarly and educated that person may be. It is only understood by people who have God’s Holy Spirit – the true Christians. Mainstream Christianity is not true Christianity that is why it fails to understand Scripture.
Before I go through every point individually, your last point is most revealing. No matter what the apprehend contradictions and erroneous statements would be found. It is in our own fault in our own thinking. It doesn’t dawn upon you that perhaps we are right and they are wrong. Why not? No matter what I say, although I will try I doubt you will understand.
  1. Come on that is so wrong, that’s some form of mantra you must have to say to yourself. I remember Ted Haggard uttering those words, and he is as dead wrong as you are. Hardly can it be described as harmonious, just look at the genealogy for how Joseph is a decendant of david, the number if generations are different and the names are different from matthew and mark i believe, If you require it i will find the reference if you do not know of what I speak. That is just one example, one gospel states that Jesus is of Bethlahem the other says does it matter that he is Gallelie. If we look at genesis there are 2 stories for genesis, one adam and eve one born after the other, one at the other time. Then we have the vast contrast between the old testament and the new testament, the stoning to death the sanctified pillaging and raping of towns and its virgin women. Then moving to the most often than not peaceful teachings of Jesus. And how exactly do you know the holyspirit was present in every single writing of the gospel and that the spirit if it was there stopped all the prejudices and internal beliefs of individual people seeping through to the pages. Dr Pache like many theologians simply assert things, while writing fiction is fine in the realms of fiction, I do so get annoyed when people try and pass it off as fact to everyone else.
    And in that fashion it is not unique.
  2. How is that a reason to figure that it is the word of god or special in anyway? It is the word of god because it claims it is the word of god? Well I sir am the purple unicorn true creator of this universe. As the holy spirit only inspired the book, the Quaran does one better, directly dictated by the angle Gabriel. Other books are also divinely inspired. It is not unique.
  3. The Quaran, the Egyptian book of the dead and the Torah, amongst the hindu and chinese ones of those names i forget. They have also been preserved. Not unique.
  4. The Egyptian book of the dead stated that Horus was the son of god. Not unique.
  5. No it is inaccurate, the Quaran actually does a decent job of compiling the various conquests of Mohamed. Ignoring the obviously fictional genesis and noah’s ark, A census and slaying of all children did not occur at the same time. Also most scholars agree that Moses and the story of Moses is most likely a completely fictional character, there is no evidence of his existence and no evidence that the jews were ever in egypt. Sure it may have some things right but not most let alone all. I trust that the examples you gave are accurate because they are irrelevant to my point, it can get some of the historical statements slightly correct.
  6. HAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH. Thats exactly what islam says and there examples are just as ambiguous and silly as the chiristian examples i have heard before. So stop rounding your mathematical calculations to 2 significant figures… oh i forgot to say HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH… Pity we didn’t know germs caused disease and not sin 1000 years ago… HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH…
  7. Errrr right as does pretty much all other holy books, not unique, but they are as ambiguous as astrology…
    But anyway like i stated at the top your last statement of MAGIC… blows all my reasoning and evidence away… because MAGIC trumps evidence in your world… So I loose…
 
Before I go through every point individually, your last point is most revealing. No matter what the apprehend contradictions and erroneous statements would be found. It is in our own fault in our own thinking. It doesn’t dawn upon you that perhaps we are right and they are wrong. Why not? No matter what I say, although I will try I doubt you will understand.
  1. Come on that is so wrong, that’s some form of mantra you must have to say to yourself. I remember Ted Haggard uttering those words, and he is as dead wrong as you are. Hardly can it be described as harmonious, just look at the genealogy for how Joseph is a decendant of david, the number if generations are different and the names are different from matthew and mark i believe, If you require it i will find the reference if you do not know of what I speak. That is just one example, one gospel states that Jesus is of Bethlahem the other says does it matter that he is Gallelie. If we look at genesis there are 2 stories for genesis, one adam and eve one born after the other, one at the other time. Then we have the vast contrast between the old testament and the new testament, the stoning to death the sanctified pillaging and raping of towns and its virgin women. Then moving to the most often than not peaceful teachings of Jesus. And how exactly do you know the holyspirit was present in every single writing of the gospel and that the spirit if it was there stopped all the prejudices and internal beliefs of individual people seeping through to the pages. Dr Pache like many theologians simply assert things, while writing fiction is fine in the realms of fiction, I do so get annoyed when people try and pass it off as fact to everyone else.
    And in that fashion it is not unique.
  2. How is that a reason to figure that it is the word of god or special in anyway? It is the word of god because it claims it is the word of god? Well I sir am the purple unicorn true creator of this universe. As the holy spirit only inspired the book, the Quaran does one better, directly dictated by the angle Gabriel. Other books are also divinely inspired. It is not unique.
  3. The Quaran, the Egyptian book of the dead and the Torah, amongst the hindu and chinese ones of those names i forget. They have also been preserved. Not unique.
  4. The Egyptian book of the dead stated that Horus was the son of god. Not unique.
  5. No it is inaccurate, the Quaran actually does a decent job of compiling the various conquests of Mohamed. Ignoring the obviously fictional genesis and noah’s ark, A census and slaying of all children did not occur at the same time. Also most scholars agree that Moses and the story of Moses is most likely a completely fictional character, there is no evidence of his existence and no evidence that the jews were ever in egypt. Sure it may have some things right but not most let alone all. I trust that the examples you gave are accurate because they are irrelevant to my point, it can get some of the historical statements slightly correct.
  6. HAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH. Thats exactly what islam says and there examples are just as ambiguous and silly as the chiristian examples i have heard before. So stop rounding your mathematical calculations to 2 significant figures… oh i forgot to say HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH… Pity we didn’t know germs caused disease and not sin 1000 years ago… HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH…
  7. Errrr right as does pretty much all other holy books, not unique, but they are as ambiguous as astrology…
    But anyway like i stated at the top your last statement of MAGIC… blows all my reasoning and evidence away… because MAGIC trumps evidence in your world… So I loose…
In all seriousness I ask, so you claim you are a witch, how does that work for you?
 
In all seriousness I ask, so you claim you are a witch, how does that work for you?
Did i say that… I mean I used to follow witchcraft and try spells, learn alot about lore. Witchcraft and magic is what got me into learning about relegions. Of course none of it worked.

Then I found something better, science. See with science you really can cast fireballs and shoot ice spears, cast healing spells and deseise spells.

Science FTW
 
Did i say that… I mean I used to follow witchcraft and try spells, learn alot about lore. Witchcraft and magic is what got me into learning about relegions. Of course none of it worked.

Then I found something better, science. See with science you really can cast fireballs and shoot ice spears, cast healing spells and deseise spells.

Science FTW
you didn’t say it but you have it listed on your profile as your religion. Ok, so you follow the scientific approach rather than believe in God at all, is that what I am to understand? Have you ever belonged to the Christian faith? I only just went over some of the thread so I hope you don’t mind. I do believe that those who are Baptized in Christ regardless of their denomination are Christians although if not Catholic, they have not been exposed to the fullness of the Christian Faith. With that said, science itself has verified the authenticity of the history of Christ and even as recently as two or three months ago historic discoveries in Archeology and Theology have been unearthed in Jordan once again providing verification to Christianity. Do these things enter into your consideration?
 
Did i say that… Science FTW
From Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica… For more, follow link
newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
… It is said in the person of God: “I am Who am.” (Exodus 3:14) The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
 
You and your church are terribly wrong about dead saints being in heaven. King David, “a man after God’s own heart” is not even in heaven. The Word of God says, “For David is not ascended into the heavens” (Acts 2:34). And so is Abraham, the father of the faithful, not in heaven: “Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?” (John 8:53). Yes, Abraham is dead and not in heaven, “and the prophets are dead…” Now, you might ask me: “So no one has ever gone to heaven?” I’ll let Jesus answer that. He said: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13).
Two things (at least)…
  1. to “ascend” means to “go up, rise, climb” Note that one ascends under one’s own power (as opposed to being taken up, pulled, carried). So yes, John 3:13 is correct, n one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.
  2. In 1 Peter 3:19 we see that Christ “went to preach to the spirits in prison.” In CCC 633 we see that Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him (Matthew 27:52-53). So, wherever Abraham and David and the rest were prior to the Resurrection, they certainly couldn’t have been in Heaven with God (either under their own power or anyone else’s).
The “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 is Jesus Christ, not Peter. Even the Catholic Augustine acknowledged that.
From the January 1998 issue of This Rock (emphases mine):

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock.

Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra.

From Peter the Rock:
Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.
(T)he structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”
That doesn’t say anything about apostolic succession.
The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
 
The Bible is the foundation of the Church that is why it has the truth. Without the Bible, there could be no truth in the Church.
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
The Bible says it could not be understood by just anybody who studies it, no matter how scholarly and educated that person may be. It is only understood by people who have God’s Holy Spirit – the true Christians. Mainstream Christianity is not true Christianity that is why it fails to understand Scripture.
The multiplicity of biblical interpretations, even among Fundamentalists, should give people a gnawing suspicion that the Holy Spirit has not been doing His job very well.

From A Pillar with the Bible on Top (emphasis mine):
After a series of failures with local churches, I was challenged by a Scott Hahn tape in which he asked, “What is the pillar and foundation of truth?” Being a good Evangelical Protestant, I thought, “The Bible, of course!” But Hahn pointed out that the Bible in 1 Timothy 3:15 says the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church! I had to admit, at least on this point, that I was wrong.

This unexpected answer got my attention. I began to think about what it meant to have the Church as foundational to truth. Could God have gifted the Church with infallibility like he had gifted the Bible? This thought began to take hold of me. (I had a vision at the time of a waist-high Corinthian pillar with a Bible open on top.) I knew the churches that I had been associated with certainly weren’t infallible.

The problem of why there are unresolved doctrinal splits and interpretations among Christians had always nagged me. If two pastors, who seemed to live upright, holy lives, taught divergent doctrines and each claimed his teaching was from the Holy Spirit, how could this be? I knew the Holy Spirit could not teach “A” and “not-A” at the same time. Could this ever be resolved? Protestants have resolved this problem by denominationalism: New denominations are born as a result of differences over biblical interpretation.

The picture of the Bible opened on the pillar began to make sense. The pillar supports the Bible. The pillar was there first, and God placed his Holy Bible there for all the world to see. … After all, I thought, it was Catholics who gave us Protestants the Bible in the first place, and they were right at least then; they kept the faith before the Bible was completed and before the printing press.
Jesus said, “You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39–40).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top