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

[JRKH]

JRKH: And it is your statement in post#666, that most of us non-catholics have trouble grasping; that the apostolic succession was pristine nd pure, all the way down the line(so to speak). The eek!, was for you drawing post #666!

Apostolic teaching Is indeed pure all the way down the line. That is because the dogmatic teachings of the Church are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

This does not mean there were not poor people in apostolic offices at times. But these people were never able to adversely affect the deposit of faith.

Peace
James

 

[MDK]

… It would appear, that the catholic position is, “If you don’t agree with us, you hate us, or are attacking us.” Isn’t persecution part of being a Christian? And it is because I am not obsessed with what people wear, that I am comfortable with wearing Levi’s, and a nice shirt:thumbsup:I have been to churches wwher people were spending more time,“rubberneckin’”, checking out how others were dressed, than listening to the sermon/message: Is ther a manual on dress codes for church attendance? If so, when did it originate, and why? Here’s something to ponder: let’s say that one of my many catholic friends were to invite me to a mass; and I showed up wearing Levi’s and a nice button-down shirt Would I be turned away, and why? Did Jesus ever turn anyone away?

The post is very backward, and seeks to insert a red herring instead of admitting that your fallacy was exposed by the truth.

For instance, Christians will be persecuted by the ignorant and un-Christian. Is it Christian to do the persecuting? Since you claim to be a Christian and are doing the persecuting of the Pope for instance, what does that say about you as it relates to the aforementioned ignorant and un-Christian?

It is disingenuous of you to claim that your post was not about making the Pope seem more like the Pharisees and Saducees by alleged similarity of dress. Even one moderately perceptive would catch that, as shown from your post;

Saw a picture of pope Benedictus XVI the other day, and couldn’t help but notice how his vestment more closely resembled those of the Pharisees and Saducees, rather than the simple and crude robes, worn by Jesus and His apostles(from whom the pope supposedly succeeded)…

The irony is that you most mimic the Pharisees, and are actually similar where it matters… while the Pharisees denied Christ, you deny His one Church. I promise that our Lord is infinitely more pleased with the obedience of Pope Benedict XVI, than the disobedience and irreverence you’re showing to the ones Christ sent.

For someone who says they love Christ, it’s a shame that you really don’t know very well the One you claim to love.

 

[MDK]

P.S. I was kidding, of course, when I said that Catholics and Protestants are both guilty of that double-standard. It’s really just the Protestants that do that.

Yes, it’s just that good quality humor usually illuminates some truth, rather than casting aspersions.

Perhaps something helpful, like the following:

Q. Why was Christ the perfect Man?

A. It was second nature to Him.

 

[MDK]

jahsoul;5131125:

Good morning/afternoon. I will try my best to get all of the replies MDK.

Well, regarding Purgatory and its “purpose,” we won’t be per se “perfect” until we are in our glorified bodies. We strive for perfection but we won’t be able to reach the perfection of Jesus until we are out of these bodies. But perfection as Paul used it was spiritual maturity. Talking about growing in Christ, from baby step to a man. Drinking milk to eating meat.

And yes, Jesus died for the sins of all men/women. Everyone also has the free will to follow Christ or not. That is why everyone isn’t going to heaven. And you are right, there are things that we have to do. But I have to digress, all of the things that you have stated comes with believing. Believing that Jesus is the son of God that died for the remissions of our sins, was buried, and rose the third day is the first step to spiritual growth and the works are a manifestation of the change in our life. And anyone can lose it what God has given. It’s called sin. No matter what we do, sin separates us. I can forgive everybody I meet, take communion, and get baptized 5 times a year, if the inside is not right, it’s all worthless.

We really don’t need replies from you, as you don’t contribute anything worthwhile, but just throw out more error which shows extreme unlearnedness.

I have already explained this to you… and the good words are being wasted on one who cannot or willfully will not understand, and does not care for truth as is evidenced by arrogance in the face of truth.

Your ignorance of doctrine also shows… one does not get baptized more than once in a lifetime. Jesus established confession for us to get rid of sins after baptism. If you don’t like this, then your problem is with Christ.

Sorry, I didn’t really express the intent behind these words well. The intent is that you please do more study and listen to the truth, rather than telling us how you oppose Apostolic truths. You are not completely without some knowledge of truth, and can build on it… and sorely need to as you are often very far from what Christ has taught. I and others have studied for a great deal of time, prayed and worked at it long before posting here or advising anyone. We have desired to ensure that we would not lead people astray.

On the other hand, you seem enamored with yourself and telling others things against the truth. For your sake, please study the truth. You have been given mountains of good interpretations and the truth, and yet you avoid learning. It is no insult to be ignorant. It is no compliment to be obstinate. You have been given enough to go on if you desire to find the truth. You do not benefit us any by your lack of knowledge of the truth, if you think you are providing some service, you are not. We don’t mind telling you the truth, but at some point, you need to rise up and learn. It’s not as if you have absolutely no knowledge of truth, but is scattered and often twisted. Please take what we have given you, and learn as we have. We are not asking you to do anything we haven’t already done.

 

[1beleevr]

Okay, the title of this thread, is “Non-catholics(or protestants), how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?”. So I was reading Matthew 1:25 recently, and saw where scripture says,“But he did not have sexual relations with her(Mary) until after the baby was born. And Joseph named Him Jesus.” I may be a bit slow, but I do understand that when people have sex, they are no longer virgins; which if anybody else on this thread agrees, would invalidate the theory about Mary being a perpetual virgin!

 

[1beleevr]

MDK: W-H-E-W! Had to put on my asbestos gloves, while reading your posts! Your intense anger permeated the screen(James 1:19-20) I never once claimed that your pope was a Pharisee, or a Saducee, just that his clothing was reminiscent of theirs I know that he is a man of integrity, and shows humility in his actions, and his words! When I see anyone wearing that type of vestment, my mind says"exalted", a term which is reserved for my King! It is disingenuous of you to declare anyone “unChristian, simply because they are not catholic And, while I agree that is not Christ-like to persecute, don’t believe for one second, that we Christians do not!(Romans 8:1).To persecute, means to harm repeatedly, to harrass, to vex. Tell me something, do you support President Obama, whether or not you voted for him, do you at least respect him? You see, the point I’m trying to make here, is, that just because you don’t agree with or accept someone, does not mean you hate them And, furthermore, you have failed miserably, in pointing out ways that I mimic the Pharisees. And believe or not(I know you don’t), I know Christ as well as, or better than you. And you must have pulled that statement about Our Lord being more pleased with your pope, than with me, out of a place where the sun don’t shine! And what is is that I have stolen(8th commandment,“Thou shalt not steal”)? Perhaps through prayer, and forgiveness(A gift, that I have finally accepted as beneficial), we both can live up to a higher standard of decency. And finally, because Christ purchased me with His blood, makes Him my Bridegroom! And rest assured that I have already forgiven you for your vicious attacks on my Christianity:thumbsup.S. No offense, but I have not yet, in two and a half months, learned anything of value from"you”! In His service;1beleevr

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, the title of this thread, is “Non-catholics(or protestants), how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?”. So I was reading Matthew 1:25 recently, and saw where scripture says,“But he did not have sexual relations with her(Mary) until after the baby was born. And Joseph named Him Jesus.” I may be a bit slow, but I do understand that when people have sex, they are no longer virgins; which if anybody else on this thread agrees, would invalidate the theory about Mary being a perpetual virgin!

Does it say in Scripture that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary *after *the baby was born?

The word “until” does not indicate anything that occurred subsequently.

Here’s some examples of other verses which use the word “until” but don’t indicate what occurred afterwards…

In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (We can presume that she didn’t have children afterwards, either. )

Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: My Bible, the Holy Word of God, says,"he did not have sexual relations, until after the baby was born! Besides, isn’t pleasing sexual union, a part of Godly marriage?

 

[PRmerger]

prmerger: My Bible, the Holy Word of God, says,"he did not have sexual relations, until after the baby was born!

Amen! My Bible says the same.

But it says nothing (and yours doesn’t either) about whether they had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.

When the Bible says that Michal had no children until after her death, does that mean she had gave birth after she died?

Besides, isn’t pleasing sexual union, a part of Godly marriage?

Indeed. But to quote from This Rock magazine: “When the Second Person of the Trinity is in your wife’s womb, you can expect to have a different marriage than most folks!”
How to Explain the Perpetual Virginity of Mary By Jason Evert

Mary is referred to as the “New Ark of the Covenant”. Imagine if that womb had borne other children–it would be as if the original Ark of the Covenant, the “Holy Place”,after bearing the sacred tablets, would then carry around some pretty rocks from the desert. Wouldn’t happen!

 

[JRKH]

prmerger: My Bible, the Holy Word of God, says,"he did not have sexual relations, until after the baby was born! Besides, isn’t pleasing sexual union, a part of Godly marriage?

1beleevr,
If I’m not mistaken, this verse was in Matthew,
A) at the time that The Church assembled the Bible,
B) at the time the Church considered the question of perpetual virginity,
C) at the time the Church made the determination about the perpetual virginity.

I Trust that The Church, who assembled the Bible, translated, prtoected and taught from it, has taken proper care in their studies on the matter, so this one verse is of little consequence to my faith.

The reason it is a problem for you is that you have taken the Bible from the Tradition that held it and are now requiring that that Tradition fit your ideas and interpretations.

Perhaps **This Article **will help.

Peace
James

 

[heiscominginthe]

The Word of God is Jesus Christ, right? As to scripture, it is sooooo self-proving that 30,000+ denominations cannot agree on major doctrines taught therein. What do you suppose Jesus meant in Matthew 28:19? Seems pretty clear. Never mind the other two baptisms. If it is not as Christ taught, it is worthless.

The other two baptisms are indeed Christ taught. If they had not significance, they would not be in the Word of God.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1beleevr
prmerger: My Bible, the Holy Word of God, says,"he did not have sexual relations, until after the baby was born!

Amen! My Bible says the same.

But it says nothing (and yours doesn’t either) about whether they had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth.

The bible, both catholic or KJ say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. In order for that to have happened, Mary and Joseph had to have had relations if Jesus had brothers and sisters. Yet, common sense tells us it would of happened after Jesus since Mary was a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus.

As for the CC denying that Mary had more children is because it supports their doctrines of men, but is plainly contrary to the Word of God.

 

[PRmerger]

The bible, both catholic or KJ say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. In order for that to have happened, Mary and Joseph had to have had relations if Jesus had brothers and sisters. Yet, common sense tells us it would of happened after Jesus since Mary was a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus.

Joseph was previously married. Could have been his children.

“Brothers” could have also been Jesus’ cousins. I know that many, many cultures refer to their cousins as their brothers. In fact, the land of my birth does. I call my elder cousins “Big Brother John” and “Big Sister Linda”.

Jesus told John at the foot of the Cross–“Behold your Mother”–and from that day on John took Mary into his household. Why would Jesus want to make sure His mother was cared for if He had siblings? Wouldn’t it naturally fall on them to care for their mother?

Mary is referred to as the “New Ark of the Covenant”. Imagine if that womb had borne other children–it would be as if the original Ark of the Covenant, the “Holy Place”,after bearing the sacred tablets, would then carry around some pretty rocks from the desert. Wouldn’t happen!

 

[Peter_J]

Besides, isn’t pleasing sexual union, a part of Godly marriage?

Absolutely. On the other hand, celibacy can be pleasing to God too. St. Paul, for example.

So I guess the question here is, If Mary and Joseph weren’t planning to have sex, why did they go ahead and get married? I’m guessing you can think of a few practical reasons.

 

[Peter_J]

Also, 1beleevr, the perpetual virginity of Mary was a traditional Christian belief long before the Council of Trent – as can be seen from the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 (see #II and #VI on this page).

 

[1beleevr]

JRKH: Nothing could be farther from the truth! I simply read this verse, and then said to myself," I thought Mary was a perpetual virgin?So after Jesus was born, the obedient Joseph had sexual relations with her “But he did not have sexual relations with her(Mary) until her son was born”.Why do we want to lessen Joseph’s part in this whole plan?

 

[1beleevr]

Sure are a lot of could have beens, probablys, and that is what the church teaches I don’t really believe that before the angel visited Mary, these two were thinking about sexual relations! Whether married or single, sexually active or celibate, the important thing was obedience; God loves obedience more than sacrifce! I am leaning more and more towards these willing servants enjoying well deserved and loving relations Not really sure whether Joseph had other children, but if he did, they would have been Jesus’s step brothers, not half brothers as the Bible states:thumbsup:

 

[1beleevr]

In post#676, MDK answered my post, but forgot to answer the question about dress codes for church service Her it is again(and don’t bore me with"please deal with less important issues on another thread), If one of my many catholic friends invited me to a mass,and I showed up wearing Levi’s, tennis shoes, and a nice button down shirt, would I be turned away, and why?

 

[PRmerger]

Not really sure whether Joseph had other children, but if he did, they would have been Jesus’s step brothers, not half brothers as the Bible states:thumbsup:

What do you mean, 1beleevr? Where does the Bible say that were half brothers and not step brothers?

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?

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 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!!

 

[1beleevr]

What if you tell your son, "You can’t drive until you’re 18; does mean he can’t drive before 18, can he drive after 18?While I can’t find step brothers, I can find half brother(or brother as it says in Acts 1:14,John 7:3-5).And what if you told your wife,“We can’t pay the bills UNTIL I get paid.” Of course Jesus will not be tossed aside when His enemies are a footstool beneath His feet And I am sure that Joseph, who from the beginning(although he had some doubts)was obedient to God, understood the gravity of his situation! I for one do not believe that he had sexual relations with Mary, immediately following the birth of Christ But, as a faithful, obedient husband, I do believe that he did have sex with her. Actually this issue could be declared a tie; seeings as how catholics can’t prove she didn’t have sex, and non-catholics, can’t prove that she did:thumbsup:If we promote public(and yes non-catholic religions do read some) reading of the Bible, then why bother having individual Bibles? tO follow along?