Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[christian1]

PRmerger said:
I’m not sure what you mean. God can do anything, yes? He could save Mary from sin in a unique way in preparation for the Incarnation of His Son. Again, it wasn’t absolutely necessary that God do it this way, but is it not fitting?

---

It is so utterly amazing how many imaginative events you conjure up outside of scripture. The problem with it is that your conjurings CONTRADICT the scripture, something which your church claims to not do.

you said:
Quote:
even though I can’t prove it, just as you can’t prove your version, she had relations with Joseph

---

your right in saying you cannot prove it but yet you have disproved the statements that say they did have relations somehow. That’s hyporcritacal.

Either you can’t prove it with scripture or you can. And if you cannot, then I would suggest you refrain from creating a dogma around your scripturally unsupported law that I must believe in order to be saved.

you said: Ah, but 1beleevr, then you are contradicting your own standard. Your tradition is that everything you believe must be stated explictly in Scripture. Thus, you absolutely cannot believe that Joseph and Mary had relations, AS IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!

---

On the contrary, it is in the bible. You have managed to explain it away with, it could mean this or it could mean that, therefore it must mean the other. The fact that there are other things it could have meant should not cancel out our interpretation of it either but then that would go against dogma that cannot be wrong. If it is ever proven wrong the church will crumble. Which is why I believe most catholics are so rigid in their belief. It is not so much what is truth as is plainly written in the word, it’s what is dogma that counts most. Never mind the dogma should agree, by the churches standard, with the infallable word of God.

I assure you, if it were not plainly written that Mary was not ever virgin, I would be promoting it because I am for the Truth. But when your church tradition begins to nullify the word of God, like the scribes and the pharisees did, then I cannot accept your tradition. It’s unfortunate that you have barred the way to heaven with your tradition unless I embrace your belief. Another act the scribes and pharisees often did. They were making their followers two-fold the child of hell that they were. Do you think your judgement for such things will be different?

Your church needs to repent just as Jesus indicates they do in Revelation.
Your are defiling His teachings with your traditions made dogma/law/salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

your right in saying you cannot prove it but yet you have disproved the statements that say they did have relations somehow. That’s hyporcritacal.

:whacky:

Either you can’t prove it with scripture or you can.

I think you are confusing me with 1beleevr. I don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura. You miss too many Truths by doing that.

On the contrary, it is in the bible.

That Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage? Where?

We have shown you that “until” does not mean necessarily something happened subsequently. (Do you still read Scriptures in public? If so, then you are contradicting Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to give public readings of Scripture only until Paul returns.)

You have managed to explain it away with, it could mean this or it could mean that, therefore it must mean the other.

And you have managed to explain it away with inanities that are un-Biblical. (Unless you can show me where in Scripture it says we’re supposed to ignore the Hebrew text and only compare it to what Jesus said. Still waiting.)

I assure you, if it were not plainly written that Mary was not ever virgin, I would be promoting it because I am for the Truth.

I absolutely believe that. And I admire your fierce love of our Lord. It’s just that you are fallible in your interpretation of Scripture. There is a guardian of that Truth found in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[christian1]

PRmerger you said:

I think I already answered that, christian1…sometimes Scripture uses the modern connotation–that is, as we understand the word “until” today–and sometimes it doesn’t.

---

I will take the time to answer each item and I hope you will do the same.

So your saying that “he did not know her till she bore her son” means merely, he did not know her while she was pregnant. If we go with your meaning, then it still stands that nowhere does it indicate that they did not have relations after. The opposite is true with the many mentions of his brothers and sisters.
Your idea that ‘it could have meant cousin’ does not mean it did and in fact, since there IS in fact a literal greek word for cousin and it IS NOT used of his brothers and sisters should have you concluding what IS STATED. He had brothers and sisters.

And your arguements “but doesn’t it seem so fitting? And wouldn’t that seem right?” is NOT something DOGMA should be founded on. ESPECIALLY Dogma that bars my way to Heaven unless I believe it.

you said:
What do you say about the verse in which Michal had no children until the day she died, in 2 Samuel? Do you believe that means she had children afterwards?

---

Now you sound like the person who uses a poem out of the bible to prove you cannot take the bible literally. The meaning to the word “unto” which is NOT THE SAME MEANING as the word “until” or “till” BY DEFINITION. Not by my picking and choosing. I’m simply saying that your choice of scripture and Hebrew word are NOT in keeping with the topic at hand. Your other scriptures ARE however and I will answer those next.

you said:
Also, what about Hebrews 1:13:
But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Does Jesus sit at the Father’s right hand until the enemies are made a footstool, and then our Lord is cast away??

---

The word until here is not the word in question. The term in question here is "what did He mean when He said ‘sit at my right hand’. We know that He sits at His right hand in authority and how do you know He isn’t LITERALLY sitting at His right hand? Does that mean he is not allowed to move from His seat until then? That is what your suggesting and it is not addressing the word ‘until’ but what is meant by ‘sit at my right hand’

you said:
And 1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

Were they to stop public reading of Scripture after Paul comes? If so, then you and your entire church are not following God’s Word!!

---

I don’t know, according to your interpretation of “did not know her till after her firstborn” could have meant he didn’t know her after, then I suppose it could have meant that they were only supposed to preach until Paul came and not after. Do you see your inconsistancy?

you said:
Quote:
And now, the one that Jesus speaks that is closest related to the scripture in question:
Mat 26:29 But1161 I say3004 unto you,5213 I will not3364 drink4095 henceforth575, 737 of1537 this5127 fruit1081 of the3588 vine,288 until2193 that1565 day2250 when3752 I drink4095 it846 new2537 with3326 you5216 in1722 my3450 Father’s3962 kingdom.932

Why do you say this verse is most closely related to the scripture in question?

---

Because textually it matches it the closest. Somebody saying they would not do something till a certain time and it clearly being understood to mean they would do it after.

you said:
Also, could you please cite for me the chapter and verse, as I previously asked, where in Scripture it says we should ignore the Hebrew text and compare it to only what Jesus said?

---

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion that you should ignore Hebrew text and compare it only to what Jesus said. Did you not see ALL the other scriptures I gave that were not what Jesus said??? And do you now understand what I meant about the Hebrew text?

you said:
Also, can you give me where it says in Scripture that she was the mother of the human Jesus, but not the divine Jesus? Chapter and verse, please

---

Mary was a human and cannot birth to something divine. Only God can do that and did. Mary COULD partake in the creating of the human Jesus, as she was human. That’s pretty elementary stuff. I can gather scriptures that say Mary was a human and not divine, but I don’t think I need to. I can gather scriptures that say God is divine but don’t think I need to. This is what I meant by she is the mother of the human Jesus and God is the Father of the Divine Jesus. She was a vessel. That’s all. Far too much importance has been placed on the vessel unto the creating of Dogma over it by which I am barred from Heaven if I simply believe that Mary was a humble servant of God who carried our savior and served Him unto her death. She is our sister, nothing more, nothing less.

Everything else is an elaborately fabricated ‘assumption’

 

[PRmerger]

Mary was a human and cannot birth to something divine.

:bigyikes:

 

[PRmerger]

The opposite is true with the many mentions of his brothers and sisters.
Your idea that ‘it could have meant cousin’ does not mean it did and in fact, since there IS in fact a literal greek word for cousin and it IS NOT used of his brothers and sisters should have you concluding what IS STATED. He had brothers and sisters.

Did Jesus speak Greek? Or Aramaic? Is there an Aramaic word for cousin?

And your arguements “but doesn’t it seem so fitting? And wouldn’t that seem right?” is NOT something DOGMA should be founded on.

You are mistaken if you think that’s how the God reveals His dogma–based on my notion that I think it’s fitting? :whacky:

 

[Peter_J]

Part 2

you said:
*No. It means that he did not have relations with her prior to the birth of her son. It is a testimony that the father of her child was the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.*Quote:

It means more than that as you can see from other scripture evidences provided. It means that something took place (which was the knowing her) at a certain time, just like it clearly means in other scripture references using the identical words of which you do not dispute the interpretations to.

Do you suppose Joseph didn’t have relations with her to prove to the world that it was God’s baby not his or that he did not have relations with her while she carried the seed of God?

It could not have been for the former for who would have believed him? As far as everyone was concerned, the baby Jesus was Josephs. It was out of respect for God not instruction from the angel that he did not have relations. It was not instructed for him to not have relations with her as you claim.

Therefore why is it mentioned ‘when he did the deed that a married couple does?’ To clarify that even though the angel told him to take her unto him as his wife, he did not have sexual relations with her until after her first born. The word until here explicitly tells that something took place at a certain time. Not that nothing took place up to a certain time as you claim as other scriptures with identical meanings of the word clearly teach.

** you said**: The angel instructed him to take her apart from the usual sexual relations that would occur during marriage.

This is where you blundered greatly. He said no such thing. It is clear who is reading beyond the text here, and it is not me as you say. But in order for your dogma to hold any water at all scripturally, you must add to, take away and stretch. But the truth is not to be covered in such a way by those who claim to love and serve God and there is a curse upon those who do according to the Word of God that your church claims to follow.

you said: *Are you saying that the correct interpretation of scripture is based upon your perception of “what usually comes”? *

What usually comes is revealed in scripture plainly. Not by perception. You would admit to this in any other respect if it weren’t going against your dogma. You pretend that these things cannot be discovered except by perception. They can and are discovered clearly in scripture that sexual relations do indeed follow a marriage. For you to say otherwise or act as though I am perceiving this to be the case without clear evidence in scripture is a clear deception on your part. Why would you do this?

Hi christian1,

If I may, your argument seems (to me) to be pretty discombobulated. If you want to have a chance of convincing any of us, I would suggest you re-present your thoughts in a more orderly fashion.

 

[Peter_J]

My interpretation of immaculate conception, is that because Jesus was born spotless, without any sin

If you look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception , the very first sentence reads

The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic Dogma, the conception of the Virgin Mary without any stain (“macula” in Latin) of original sin.

The first time the article mentions Protestants is in this sentence:

The doctrine is generally not shared by either Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Communion, or by the various Protestant communities.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger said:
Also, what about Hebrews 1:13:
But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Does Jesus sit at the Father’s right hand until the enemies are made a footstool, and then our Lord is cast away??

---

And then christian1 said:
The word until here is not the word in question.

Huh??? Um…yes it is, christian1. That is exactly the word in question.

So what happens after God makes your enemies a footstool for your feet? What happens after that??

The term in question here is "what did He mean when He said ‘sit at my right hand’.Does that mean he is not allowed to move from His seat until then? That is what your suggesting

What in the world are you talking about? I’m not “suggesting” anything of that sort.
I’m telling you that “until” used here does not mean anything subsequently.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger said:
And 1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

Were they to stop public reading of Scripture after Paul comes? If so, then you and your entire church are not following God’s Word!!

---

And christian1 responded:
I don’t know, according to your interpretation of “did not know her till after her firstborn” could have meant he didn’t know her after, then I suppose it could have meant that they were only supposed to preach until Paul came and not after. Do you see your inconsistancy?

No, christian1. You are claiming that “until” always indicates a change in behavior. So if a verse has “until” in it it you claim it means “X” happened to a certain point, then “Not X”. Or, the corollary: “Not X” happened to a certain point, then “X” happened. (As in Joseph did not have relations with Mary up to a certain point, then he did.)

So in Timothy you are claiming that “X” happened (reading of Scripture publicly), THEN, Paul comes, so if we follow your logic “Not X” *should have happened *(no reading of Scripture in public.) This certainly is not the case. In fact, I assume that your church does not follow your understanding of the word “until” and does read Scripture publicly in its services?

Thus, your understanding of the word “until” is faulty.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger said:
Also, could you please cite for me the chapter and verse, as I previously asked, where in Scripture it says we should ignore the Hebrew text and compare it to only what Jesus said?

---

And christian1 responded:
I don’t know how you came to that conclusion that you should ignore Hebrew text and compare it only to what Jesus said.

When I gave the verse from 2 Samuel that used “until” to clearly validate that it does NOT mean anything happened subsequently, you dismissed it initially as saying it was in Hebrew.

Mary was a human and cannot birth to something divine.

This objection puts you in the same company as Muslims, Jews, Atheists, “progressive” Christian theologians–all who deny Christ’s divinity. Jews and Muslims especially take offense at the concept of a human being bearing someone divine. Impossible they say! Blasphemy!

She was a vessel. That’s all.

Ok. But in the same way that the Ark of the Covenant was just a vessel. Did you read about how the Ark of the Covenant was treated by the Israelites? Do you know what happened to someone who inadvertenly touched it? Just a vessel? Hmmm…:getholy:

 

[guanophore]

I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that anyone has indicated that Mary had sex with Joseph prior to the birth of Christ. We all know that she was a virgin(immaculate conception).

I hope you hang around, 1beleevr… You sure do have a lot to learn about the Catholic faith.

The Immaculate Conception refers to a different doctrine than the Perpetual Virginity.

What we are doing, is raising the very real possibility that Joseph and his wife, enjoyed a physical relationship AFTER Jesus was born

Indeed you are. This theory emanates from an understanding of human relationships that is self centered, and governed by physical passions. That is one reason such a theory is not consistent with apostolic teaching.

I have heard, from more than one person, that in Jewish custom, when a man and woman were betrothed, in essence, “married”, that they were required to live separately for one year, until the formal ceremony! It was probably during this time, that Mary was visited by the angel, and conceived, by way of the Holy Spirit! It is not too much of a stretch, to believe that, by the power of the Almighty, living God, that her womb was sanctified and prepared for the birth of Our Saviour!

Yes. All these points are consistent with Catholic Teaching, with the exception that Mary’s womb was sanctified along with the rest of her, prior to the visitation of the angel.

Romans 5:12, tells us,that through one man, sin entered the world, and that ALL were affected! But don’t sell God short; He is ALL THAT, and more, and is capable of anything, and everything:thumbsup: While the debate will rage on, as to whether Mary was born a virgin and died a virgin, it is not too inconceivable to think, that she and Joseph consummated their marriage! Indeed you are correct. This heresy was conceived in the very early days of the Church, and was dispatched by the same Church that canonized the scriptures from which the same misinterpretation has emerged again!
1beleevr;5147856:

I know it doesn’t fit with certain religion’s doctrine, but, oh well

this is the most important point. Any theories and “possibilities” that are advanced that are not consistent with what the Apostles Taught (contained in the Catholic Church) are to be regarded as “a different gospel” and must be rejected.

 

[guanophore]

Guonophore you said: Perhaps you would have a less difficult time if you understood that the Scripture does not reveal any plain truth about Mary that contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches.
Then explain to me how you can interpret the following to mean “something takes place after” in these scripture references using the same words in the scripture in question:

I simply don’t misinterpret them.

The use of the word “until” does not necessarily imply that something will occur afterward. In the case of the scripture regarding Mary, we know that the statement about her virginity until the birth of her son did not mean she had normal sexual relations afterward because this is the teaching we have received from the Apostles.

And now, the one that Jesus speaks that is closest related to the scripture in question:
Mat 26:29 But1161 I say3004 unto you,5213 I will not3364 drink4095 henceforth575, 737 of1537 this5127 fruit1081 of the3588 vine,288 until2193 that1565 day2250 when3752 I drink4095 it846 new2537 with3326 you5216 in1722 my3450 Father’s3962 kingdom.932

Are you suggesting that Jesus has taken a drink from the fruit of the vine since His crucifixion?

you said: *There were some writings that did, and the Catholic Church did not include them in the Canon as a result. *

As you can see, these evidences that clearly explain by comparison the meaning of the word “until” in this passage are not done away with but exist in your bible.
The problem with your dogma is in claiming your position with such evidences pointing to the contrary on every side.

No, to the Catholic there is no contradiction. We recognize that there are times when ‘until’ does not mean that the action being discussed happens afterward. This does not have to negate other examples where it is clear that the action does occur.

you said:
You are giving a good demonstration of why the OP is asking the question. What is “plain truth” to you is not so much to others. so, how do you know your idea of “plain truth” is the right one, and the one commited to the Church by the Apostles is not?

You have no problem admitting the meaning of the word “until” to mean what it obviously does in the other examples I provided using the same word “until” you only have a problem using the definition in the same terms when it comes to this one scripture.

Actually, several scriptures have been posted that make it clear “until” does not mean that the action has occurred, after. Just read up the thread.

the only evidence you can provide in scripture to support your faulty interpretation of the word "until" is from the Hebrew text that uses the word "unto" which by definition means 'up to a certain time or point'

Not at all! Our interpretation of scripture comes through the teaching of the Apostles, which has been deposited to the Church. When we read the scripture, we understanding it in the light of what they taught. They taught that Mary had no other children, so when we read the scriptures, we understand them in the light of this teaching.

One does not need to even look up the word in 2Samual to understand what was meant. The fact that you would use such a scripture tells me that there is no real scriptural evidence to support the stand the church has taken but on the contrary, the scripture evidence points to my stand.

To the extent that the Church doctrine is not based upon the Scripture, this is true. All of the doctrines of Catholicism come from Jesus Himself. They were given whole and entire to the Church before a word of the NT was ever written, or the Bible canonized.

We do see our faith reflected in the scripture, it is not the Source. Jesus is the Source. Since He is also the Source of Scripture, we find no conflict.

You admit this when you examine the other scripture references I have provided with the same exact word and recognize it’s obvious meaning. Therefore it is most extremely erroneous of you to take your stand on the meaning ‘until’ here, when there is far too many scriptures that support it, not refute it.

I agree, it would be an error to “take a stand” on any scripture apart from the Apostolic Teaching. Just as much as it would be an error to assume that the word “until” meant the same in all passages. Sometimes it is used differently.

you said:
*No. It means that he did not have relations with her prior to the birth of her son. It is a testimony that the father of her child was the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.*Quote:

It means more than that as you can see from other scripture evidences provided. It means that something took place (which was the knowing her) at a certain time, just like it clearly means in other scripture references using the identical words of which you do not dispute the interpretations to.

We know it does not mean that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, because this is the teaching we have received from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

Do you suppose Joseph didn’t have relations with her to prove to the world that it was God’s baby not his or that he did not have relations with her while she carried the seed of God?

I think that Joseph did not have relations with Mary because she was a consecrated virgin,and that he married her to be her legal guardian. He made this commitment before He knew about Jesus, and thought, after he learned she was pregnant, that God’s plan for him had changed. God sent an angel to him to explain that the plan had not changed, he was still called to be the guardian and protector of Mary. But now he had even more responsibility, he also was to foster the Son of God.

It could not have been for the former for who would have believed him? As far as everyone was concerned, the baby Jesus was Josephs. It was out of respect for God not instruction from the angel that he did not have relations. It was not instructed for him to not have relations with her as you claim.

You cannot show this from scripture. Since scripture does not contain the whole history of what happened, you are making assertions based upon your assumptions. You are correct, though, it was out of respect for God that Joseph did not have relations with Mary. He knew quite well what would happen to one who touched the Ark of the Covenant that was not ordained to do so.

Therefore why is it mentioned ‘when he did the deed that a married couple does?’

It is not mentioned, because he did not.

To clarify that even though the angel told him to take her unto him as his wife, he did not have sexual relations with her until after her first born. The word until here explicitly tells that something took place at a certain time. Not that nothing took place up to a certain time as you claim as other scriptures with identical meanings of the word clearly teach.

I can certainly see why you would interpret it that way.

** you said**: The angel instructed him to take her apart from the usual sexual relations that would occur during marriage.

This is where you blundered greatly. He said no such thing. It is clear who is reading beyond the text here, and it is not me as you say.

Perhaps I did not express myself well. Joseph learned Mary was pregnant. He thought this meant he should not take her to be his wife. The angel instructed him that he should do so, even though she was pregnant with a child not his. He did not have normal sexual relations as would occur in a marriage.

But in order for your dogma to hold any water at all scripturally, you must add to, take away and stretch.

No,not for us. Since our dogma comes from the revelation of God, it does not require adding, subtracting, or stretching scripture. Jesus knew that He did not have any siblings from His mother. His Apostles knew this. All the writers of the NT knew this, and all the Christians through the Reformation knew this. When the Scriptures were separated from the Apostolic Teaching, people began to misunderstand the Scriptures.

But the truth is not to be covered in such a way by those who claim to love and serve God and there is a curse upon those who do according to the Word of God that your church claims to follow.

If you believe the Catholic Church is cursed by God, why are you on a Catholic website? Are you not concerned about contaminating yourself spiritually?

you said: *Are you saying that the correct interpretation of scripture is based upon your perception of “what usually comes”? *

What usually comes is revealed in scripture plainly. Not by perception.

Ahhh. Herein lies the great fallacy! On the contrary, human beings interpret everything they read and hear. It ALL goes thru the filters of our perceptions. How we understand what we read is based upon our personal experiences and education (or lack of it). This is why Jesus had to send His Spirit, to guide us into all Truth. He gave this promise to the One Church which He founded.

You would admit to this in any other respect if it weren’t going against your dogma. You pretend that these things cannot be discovered except by perception.

On the contrary, I have seen several examples shown on this thread that do not follow the pattern that you see in the word “until”. I am aware that the best in Scripture can be discovered by the revelation of God, and not by human perception.

They can and are discovered clearly in scripture that sexual relations do indeed follow a marriage.

Most of the time, of course! There are always exceptions, and Mary is one.

For you to say otherwise or act as though I am perceiving this to be the case without clear evidence in scripture is a clear deception on your part. Why would you do this?

No, I can understand perfectly how you glean this interpretation. I think, for those separated from the Apostolic Teaching, it is difficult to understand otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

Which is why I believe most catholics are so rigid in their belief. It is not so much what is truth as is plainly written in the word, it’s what is dogma that counts most. Never mind the dogma should agree, by the churches standard, with the infallable word of God.

I can understand how it would seem this way to one who is separated from Apostolic Teaching. Some rigidity is needed.

Heb 4:14
“let us hold fast our confession”

This is a reference to the creed- the belief of the early church. For this confession men and women died for centuries,and still do.

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. " 2 Thess 3:6-7

It is a puzzle to me how those separated from the Apostolic Tradition understand these verses about preserving tradition. In the NT, this way of life, preserved in tradition, is called “The Way”. Not all of it was committed to writing when the NT was closed.

I assure you, if it were not plainly written that Mary was not ever virgin, I would be promoting it because I am for the Truth. But when your church tradition begins to nullify the word of God, like the scribes and the pharisees did, then I cannot accept your tradition.

So, why are you here?

It's unfortunate that you have barred the way to heaven with your tradition unless I embrace your belief.

This is just silly. No one ever said that people who have not accepted the Apostolic Tradition cannot be saved.

Another act the scribes and pharisees often did.

This is now the third post of yours comparing Catholics to unbelievers. I have wondered why you are here. Is it your intention to show Catholics the log in their eye?

They were making their followers two-fold the child of hell that they were. Do you think your judgement for such things will be different?

No, I do not. However, I think it makes people a child of hell to reject the Teaching of the Apostles.

Your church needs to repent just as Jesus indicates they do in Revelation. Your are defiling His teachings with your traditions made dogma/law/salvation.

Have you now made the statement that you came here to make?

 

[guanophore]

When you find the Biblical reference to, who is it, St Anne, whom I would assume was Marys’ mother, could you post it please!

You assume correctly, St. Anne was Mary’s mother. How do we know this? Because we have followed the Apostolic Command to preserve the traditions that were delivered to us, whether by word of mouth, or by letter.

It is an error to assume that everything Christians need to know is found in Scripture.

My interpretation of immaculate conception, is that because Jesus was born spotless, without any sin, that this is what was immaculate about the conception, which is beyond the “normal” means of conception,i.e., egg+sperm!

What you have demonstrated here is a great example of the question posted by the OP. You are saying that what Christianity has taught for centuries is of no value to you, neither is anything that was handed down from the Apostles. All that matters is “my interpretation” of the words.

If Mary were herself, the product of an immaculate conception, then Anne, and all relatives on both sides of the family would have to be free of sin also, right!

No. God wanted to prepare a pure vessel for the incarnation of His Son. Are you suggesting that that God is not able to do this?

Are you suggesting that God cannot create a single person who is without sin?

Any hiccup in the lineage, would change everything

Your god is way too small!

So with all due respect to those who believe, and teach that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I submit that, even though I can’t prove it, just as you can’t prove your version, she had relations with Joseph:thumbsup:

Submit all you like! Your following error does not negate the Truth.

It is so utterly amazing how many imaginative events you conjure up outside of scripture. The problem with it is that your conjurings CONTRADICT the scripture, something which your church claims to not do.

It is true that there are many of imaginative things conceived outside of Scripture. This is not a problem for Catholics. We can imagine so long as we do not wander outside the parameters of Apostolic Teaching.

You are correct, there are no contradictions between Scripture, and Apostolic Teaching (preserved in the Catholic Church). The only thing that contradicts is your understanding of one, the other, or both.

 

[guanophore]

you said: even though I can’t prove it, just as you can’t prove your version, she had relations with Joseph

---

your right in saying you cannot prove it but yet you have disproved the statements that say they did have relations somehow. That’s hyporcritacal.

No, not a bit! You see, Catholics do not cling to the error that everything must be found in Scripture in order to be a valid Truth of God. The Catholic Church has followed the Apostolic command to preserve that which was delivered to the Church, both orally, and in writing. It is the children of the Reformers that suffer problems, because they accept so many Sacred Traditions that are not found in Scripture, and yet they claim cannot be protected by God in the Church.

Either you can’t prove it with scripture or you can. And if you cannot, then I would suggest you refrain from creating a dogma around your scripturally unsupported law that I must believe in order to be saved.

Well, thanks for the suggestion.

However, an Apostolic Command to preserve tradition overtrumps your unlearned “suggestion” every time.

Not only that,we do find support in Scripture for the dogma.

you said: Ah, but 1beleevr, then you are contradicting your own standard. Your tradition is that everything you believe must be stated explictly in Scripture. Thus, you absolutely cannot believe that Joseph and Mary had relations, AS IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!

---

On the contrary, it is in the bible. You have managed to explain it away with, it could mean this or it could mean that, therefore it must mean the other. The fact that there are other things it could have meant should not cancel out our interpretation of it either

This is a very good answer to the OP. Basically what you seem to be saying is that your interpretation of what the words mean, even if they contradict what the church has always believed before your time, are the right interpretations because you are who yuou are, and what you perceive is therefore more accurate than what the Apostles Taught.

but then that would go against dogma that cannot be wrong.  If it is ever proven wrong the church will crumble.

It is true that no interpretation of scripture can go against what God has already revealed to the Church.

The other assertion you make about “proven wrong” is basically an ego centered statement that reflects our fallen human nature. You see, the Truth revealed to the Church is not based upon human "proofs’ but upon divine revelation. Sure, some human could always com up with something they thought would “prove” God wrong.

Which is why I believe most catholics are so rigid in their belief. It is not so much what is truth as is plainly written in the word, it’s what is dogma that counts most. Never mind the dogma should agree, by the churches standard, with the infallable word of God.

I can understand how it would seem this way to one who is separated from Apostolic Teaching. Some rigidity is needed.

Heb 4:14
“let us hold fast our confession”

This is a reference to the creed- the belief of the early church. For this confession men and women died for centuries,and still do.

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. " 2 Thess 3:6-7

It is a puzzle to me how those separated from the Apostolic Tradition understand these verses about preserving tradition. In the NT, this way of life, preserved in tradition, is called “The Way”. Not all of it was committed to writing when the NT was closed.

I assure you, if it were not plainly written that Mary was not ever virgin, I would be promoting it because I am for the Truth. But when your church tradition begins to nullify the word of God, like the scribes and the pharisees did, then I cannot accept your tradition.

So, why are you here?

It's unfortunate that you have barred the way to heaven with your tradition unless I embrace your belief.

This is just silly. No one ever said that people who have not accepted the Apostolic Tradition cannot be saved.

Another act the scribes and pharisees often did.

This is now the third post of yours comparing Catholics to unbelievers. I have wondered why you are here. Is it your intention to show Catholics the log in their eye?

They were making their followers two-fold the child of hell that they were. Do you think your judgement for such things will be different?

No, I do not. However, I think it makes people a child of hell to reject the Teaching of the Apostles.

Your church needs to repent just as Jesus indicates they do in Revelation. Your are defiling His teachings with your traditions made dogma/law/salvation.

Have you now made the statement that you came here to make?

 

[guanophore]

PRmerger you said:

I think I already answered that, christian1…sometimes Scripture uses the modern connotation–that is, as we understand the word “until” today–and sometimes it doesn’t.

---

So your saying that “he did not know her till she bore her son” means merely, he did not know her while she was pregnant. If we go with your meaning, then it still stands that nowhere does it indicate that they did not have relations after.

I would hardly characterize this revelation as “mere”, but yes, that is the purpose of the passage.

You are right, the text does not indicate that they did not have relations after. Neither does it indicate they did not. We understand the remainder through Sacred Tradition.

you said: Ah, but 1beleevr, then you are contradicting your own standard. Your tradition is that everything you believe must be stated explictly in Scripture. Thus, you absolutely cannot believe that Joseph and Mary had relations, AS IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!

---

On the contrary, it is in the bible. You have managed to explain it away with, it could mean this or it could mean that, therefore it must mean the other**. The fact that there are other things it could have meant should not cancel out our interpretation of it either**

No, they do not. And this is the reason that Jesus left His Church in authority. He had witnessed throughout His life how various factions interpreted the revelation of God differently.

Jesus did not want us to argue constantly about the meaning of scripture, or to “cancel out” each other’s interpretations. He wanted unity, which comes from adherance to the Truth. This is found in His Church, the pillar and ground of the Truth.

The opposite is true with the many mentions of his brothers and sisters.

Only if you cannot understand the scriptures from the perspective in which they were written.

Your idea that ‘it could have meant cousin’ does not mean it did and in fact, since there IS in fact a literal greek word for cousin and it IS NOT used of his brothers and sisters should have you concluding what IS STATED. He had brothers and sisters.

Except that the book of Matthew was written first in Aramaic, and there is no word for “cousins”. But, you are right, we do not base things on what "could have’ been, but what was given to us by the Apostles.

christian1:

And your arguements “but doesn’t it seem so fitting? And wouldn’t that seem right?” is NOT something DOGMA should be founded on.

You are correct again. Dogma is based upon divine revelation. The fact that it “seems fitting” to our rational minds is not the Source of the Truth.

ESPECIALLY Dogma that bars my way to Heaven unless I believe it.

The Catholic Church does not teach that a persson cannot be saved even though they do not know the Apostolic Teachings. God can save whomever He likes, however He wants.

you said:
What do you say about the verse in which Michal had no children until the day she died, in 2 Samuel? Do you believe that means she had children afterwards?

---

Now you sound like the person who uses a poem out of the bible to prove you cannot take the bible literally. The meaning to the word “unto” which is NOT THE SAME MEANING as the word “until” or “till” BY DEFINITION. Not by my picking and choosing. I’m simply saying that your choice of scripture and Hebrew word are NOT in keeping with the topic at hand. Your other scriptures ARE however and I will answer those next.

OK. What you are saying is that other meanings of the word “until” are not applicable by your definition of the term. You are saying that it is not your pick, then you say it is “not in keeping with the topic at hand”. There are no “topics at hand” of a similar nature. Mary is unique. Her marriage was unique. Her motherhood is unique.

 

[guanophore]

Does Jesus sit at the Father’s right hand until the enemies are made a footstool, and then our Lord is cast away??

---

The word until here is not the word in question. The term in question here is "what did He mean when He said ‘sit at my right hand’.

Nice dodge, but in fact, it is the meaning of the word “until” we are questioning. You have been given a use of the word that does not indicate any change when the expected event occurs.

And 1 Timothy 4:13
Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.

Were they to stop public reading of Scripture after Paul comes? If so, then you and your entire church are not following God’s Word!!

---

I don’t know, according to your interpretation of “did not know her till after her firstborn” could have meant he didn’t know her after, then I suppose it could have meant that they were only supposed to preach until Paul came and not after. Do you see your inconsistancy?

No. What I see is that the use of the word “until” does not always infer that there will be a change after the event occurs.

I don’t know how you came to that conclusion that you should ignore Hebrew text and compare it only to what Jesus said. Did you not see ALL the other scriptures I gave that were not what Jesus said??? And do you now understand what I meant about the Hebrew text?

Most of the time, the use of the term “until” does have implications about what comes after. Sometimes, it does not.

Mary was a human and cannot birth to something divine. Only God can do that and did. Mary COULD partake in the creating of the human Jesus, as she was human. That’s pretty elementary stuff. I can gather scriptures that say Mary was a human and not divine, but I don’t think I need to. I can gather scriptures that say God is divine but don’t think I need to. This is what I meant by she is the mother of the human Jesus and God is the Father of the Divine Jesus. She was a vessel. That’s all.

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how old heresies rear their ugly heads again. I urge you to go back and read the Gnostic heresies, and the formulation of the concept of Trinity, and hypostatic union. The Church worked through these errors in the early centuries. Why allow yourself to fall into them again? Trust that God is able to guide the Church into all Truth.

Far too much importance has been placed on the vessel unto the creating of Dogma over it by which I am barred from Heaven if I simply believe that Mary was a humble servant of God who carried our savior and served Him unto her death. She is our sister, nothing more, nothing less.

People are not “barred from Heaven” because they are ignorant. They are barred because they are disobedient.

Everything else is an elaborately fabricated ‘assumption’

Why are you here, christian1?

 

[christian1]

guanophore you said: We know it does not mean that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, because this is the teaching we have received from the Apostles.

---

Any sort of scripture indicating that she did not have other kids to SUPPORT at least your dogma, of which I am required to believe in order to go to heaven, would be awesome.

You do claim that your traditions do not go against scripture and are supported in it. I would like to see something that would indicate Mary was to never have other children and did not have other children.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by christian1
Far too much importance has been placed on the vessel unto the creating of Dogma over it by which I am barred from Heaven if I simply believe that Mary was a humble servant of God who carried our savior and served Him unto her death. She is our sister, nothing more, nothing less.

Since Mary is the Mother of Jesus who is our eldest Brother - we being children of God - she is our Spiritual Mother, not our sister.

Also, as regards the whole discussion re" whether Joseph had marital relations with her.
The passage you site does indeed read as though he did have relations after Jesus birth and I have wondered about this myself.
But consider this.
Joseph knew Who the father of Jesus was for earlier in Matthew, (verse 20) we see:
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Thus it is that Joseph knows to whom Mary is “betrothed” on the spiritual level.
Does it seem likely that a God Fearing Man such as Joseph would “defile” the virginity of God’s Holy One and the mother of the Child conceived by the Holy Spirit?
It seems unlikely that Joseph would risk the wrath of God by engaging in marital relations with Mary who is obviously “betrothed” to the Holy Spirit of God.

Just a thought.

Peace
James