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

[christian1]

Why are you here, christian1?

To try and find a catholic that can prove to me that this dogma of Mary is found in scripture and not the contrary.

There are so many conflicting scriptural evidences that catholics explain away.

If it were not that they conflicted, I would say, what is the harm?

But indeed they are.

I am not familiar with the heresies of the past, I am simply observing what is obvious now.

And I am barred from heaven on many catholic accounts. Believing the dogma of Mary one of them, when the scriptures are full of statements that show your dogma is tradition whose foundation is not founded in scripture but it’s opposite is.

Someone asked if Jesus speaked Aramaic or Greek.

The question is, what language was spoken in the case where the word cousin is used and brother and sister? Was it the same language or not?

If it is not the same language then you have a valid arguement to look into. But if it is the same, why the different use of the words when there were exact words available to use?

I am sincere in my faith. I have catholic family members. I am sincerely trying to make sense of the dogma and there has been quite a bit of proof that dogma has changed and have looked into these so called changes that the catholics claim are not changes but developmental growth and they are OBVIOUSLY changes from any sane individual standpoint.

If my belief contradicts the written word I will repent. But it is not my belief that I see contradicting the word but your dogmas.

Of which you have barred the way to heaven unless I believe them.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

Who said you are required to believe it in order to go to heaven? (That’s not a sarcastic question. It’s possible that someone did say that – I readily admit that I haven’t read every single post on this thread.)

 

[guanophore]

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.

Christian1, I am happy to discuss the Marian dogmas, as you can easily see from looking at the threads of which I have been apart. It is off topic in this thread, and it is a violation of the forum rules to derail a topic like this.

The question of this thread is,“How do you know that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one?”

The Apostles taught that when Mary said “how shall this be, since I know not a man”, she was referring to her vows of perpetual virginity, and her intention to give her whole self to God, body, soul, and spirit. She had embraced a lifestyle of chastity. This is not the type of question a young lady asks when she is about to get married. A woman would assume that, if she were getting married, she would get pregnant after the manner of all women.

Now the issue is, how do you know that the opposite way you understand this passage is right, and not the interpretation of it we have received from the Apostles?

your dogma, of which I am required to believe in order to go to heaven, would be awesome.

christian1, it is not a very good testimony to the name you have chosen to misrepresent the Truth. The Catholic Church does not teach that human beings must receive the Apostolic Teachings in order to be saved. God can save whomever He wants, however He likes.

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.

This should be addressed in another thread. I will state, for the sake of the topic, though, that the reason Catholics know when our interpretation of Holy Scripture is correct is when we are in harmony with the teachings of the Apostles, which is contained in the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

Why are you here, christian1?

To try and find a catholic that can prove to me that this dogma of Mary is found in scripture and not the contrary.

Very well, then you need to start a new thread. Go to the home page, locate the section on “apologetics”, go to the most appropriate section (sounds like sacred scripture) and post your challenge there. It is off topic in this thread, and this is not the most appropriate section to ask it.

For myself, I will say that you are not likely to find “proof” there either, though you will get some efforts to demonstrate an answer to your challenge. I can’t “prove” most of the elements of the Apostles Creed. I accept them by faith, becuase I have chosen to embrace all that Jesus taught. I find these truths reflected in scripture because I believe them. That is why they are called “articles of faith”, not “articles of proof”.

There are so many conflicting scriptural evidences that catholics explain away.

If it were not that they conflicted, I would say, what is the harm?

But indeed they are.

I am not familiar with the heresies of the past, I am simply observing what is obvious now.

I do understand why they seem to conflict. I used to suffer from the same problem.

If you are really serious about Christianity, it would be a great benefit for you to study the heresies of the past. I can assure you that they are resurfacing in almost identical form now. It is in response to the heresies that the Marian dogmas were formed. You cannot hope to understand them very well apart from understanding the heresies to which they were a response.

And I am barred from heaven on many catholic accounts.

I strongly urge that you cease and desist from pandering such misinformation, chirstian1. It is shameful to go about bearing the title “christain1” while representing lies of this kind.

Only your own choices will bar you from heaven. God desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. It may be your lies about the Catholic faith may bar you, but that is not the fault of the Catholic Church.

Believing the dogma of Mary one of them, when the scriptures are full of statements that show your dogma is tradition whose foundation is not founded in scripture but it’s opposite is.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

Catholics see that all the Scriptures support the Marian Dogmas. So, how do you now that the opposite manner in which you interpret them is correct, and that which we received from the Apostles is not?

Someone asked if Jesus speaked Aramaic or Greek.

The question is, what language was spoken in the case where the word cousin is used and brother and sister? Was it the same language or not?

The reference to “brothers and sisters” was first written in Aramaic, which has no word for “cousin”, “stepbrothers” etc. They are all considered near kinsman. Aramaic reflects the language of the clans in which the Jews have always lived. Any member of the clan that was to close a relative to marry was considered a “brother or sister” (near kin). This has been covered here ad nauseum on the threads and in the library. We get this kind of misunderstanding of the scripture here a lot.

If it is not the same language then you have a valid arguement to look into. But if it is the same, why the different use of the words when there were exact words available to use?

The Apostles never intended or probably imagined that the Holy Scriptures would be separated from the Teaching of the Church. they wrote the memoirs and letters to supplement the Teaching,not to be the Source of it. Jesus appointed Teachers for this task. This is one of the reasons He did not write a book Himself!

I am sincere in my faith.

I reallyy do believe this. That is why it is a serious matter for you to call yourself a Christian and spread lies.

I have catholic family members. I am sincerely trying to make sense of the dogma and there has been quite a bit of proof that dogma has changed and have looked into these so called changes that the catholics claim are not changes but developmental growth and they are OBVIOUSLY changes from any sane individual standpoint.

You have a valid issue, and it can well be addressed here. However, you are trying to do it on the wrong thread, in the wrong section. Post this over in apologetics. If you are serious, I am sure you will, at the very least, learn a lot, even if you are not pursuaded in the end.

You might also try searching for threads on Sacred Tradition.

If my belief contradicts the written word I will repent. But it is not my belief that I see contradicting the word but your dogmas.

This is the rub, isn’t it? And now we are back to the question in the OP. How do you know that your understanding of the Scriptures is more correct than what we have received from the Apostles. If you are unwilling to receive what was given to the Church by the Apostles, how can you expect that the apparent contradictions will be resolved?

Of which you have barred the way to heaven unless I believe them.

This is shameful, christian1. No man can bar the way to heaven for another, unless you fully consent to enter into sin with such a one, and choose, along with that person, not to enter.

Actually, it seems like you are just angry at the Catholic Church for Teaching that what God has revealed to her must be believe by those who claim to belong to her.

 

[PRmerger]

[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’ve made this claim about the Catholic Church barring you from heaven if you don’t believe this teaching about Mary. Now support it. Show all the readers on this thread where the Catholic Church teaches this. The Catechism is available online. Any quote from there would be sufficient.

I don’t think you are being purposely disingenuous–just ignorant about what Catholicism teaches.

But you are like an atheist who comes to a Christian forum and says, “You Christians believe that God told you to over-populate the world!” To which Christians would rightfully respond, “No, Atheist, you do not understand Christian doctrine at all. You have been misinformed.”

 

[christian1]

PRmerger

I am a seeker of truth for a very long time. I am not entirely ignorant as you might think on your doctrine and dogma but apparently you are.

I have the following to offer. Tell me if it’s in contradiction to what your church teaches:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
[Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

I forgot the darn link. I’ll go get it and post that next.

 

[christian1]

here is the link:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

 

[christian1]

Here is another interesting term used in Catholic writing.

1. For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands. For if true love alone has the power to unite the wills of men, it is of the first necessity that we should have one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord. What this most prudent Virgin said to the servants at the marriage feast of Cana she addresses also to us: “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye” (John ii., 5). Now here is the word of Jesus Christ: “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt. xix., 17). Let them each one fully convince himself of this, that if his piety towards the Blessed Virgin does not hinder him from sinning, or does not move his will to amend an evil life, it is a piety deceptive and Iying, wanting as it is in proper effect and its natural fruit.

Bold mine.

Here is the link that this came from:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum_en.html

you should read the entire thing so that you can be informed as to exactly HOW you should worship Mary and in what way. For it clearly says, if you do not do so in the right attitude, you honor her with your lips and your heart is far from her.

This kind of stuff seems to be an abomination of the Holy Scriptures.

But I know that it isn’t taught to worship Mary or venerate her images, artifacts and saints.

And yet it is.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger

I am a seeker of truth for a very long time. I am not entirely ignorant as you might think on your doctrine and dogma but apparently you are.

I have the following to offer. Tell me if it’s in contradiction to what your church teaches:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
[Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

I forgot the darn link. I’ll go get it and post that next.

I got the link you. The above quote is not on the link. So could you please provide me the source where the Catholic Church defines that you are barred from heaven for not believing this?

 

[PRmerger]

Here is another interesting term used in Catholic writing.

1. For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands. For if true love alone has the power to unite the wills of men, it is of the first necessity that we should have one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord. What this most prudent Virgin said to the servants at the marriage feast of Cana she addresses also to us: “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye” (John ii., 5). Now here is the word of Jesus Christ: “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt. xix., 17). Let them each one fully convince himself of this, that if his piety towards the Blessed Virgin does not hinder him from sinning, or does not move his will to amend an evil life, it is a piety deceptive and Iying, wanting as it is in proper effect and its natural fruit.

Bold mine.

Here is the link that this came from:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum_en.html

you should read the entire thing so that you can be informed as to exactly HOW you should worship Mary and in what way. For it clearly says, if you do not do so in the right attitude, you honor her with your lips and your heart is far from her.

This kind of stuff seems to be an abomination of the Holy Scriptures.

But I know that it isn’t taught to worship Mary or venerate her images, artifacts and saints.

And yet it is.

It is indeed scandalous that the word “worship” is applied to Mary. Yet, I find the entire document a *beautiful and sublime *description of how Christians are to follow the Word of God…it is an exhortation that we should have “one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord.”. Who could disagree with that?

 

[John7]

1. For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart…

Bold mine.

All right now I’m confused
did Pius mean hyperdoulia or latria ?

 

[East_Anglican]

It is indeed scandalous that the word “worship” is applied to Mary. Yet, I find the entire document a *beautiful and sublime *description of how Christians are to follow the Word of God…it is an exhortation that we should have “one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord.”. Who could disagree with that?

Scandalous?

It’s shocking!

 

[christian1]

PRmerger, you have the link, just click and look for the following below which is it more fully: At the bottom you will find the conclusion which concerns the topic you asked for.
I put it in bold for you.

Dogmas of the Catholic Church. (Fundamentals)

The following De Fide statements comprise “Our Catholic Faith without which it is impossible to please God” (The Council of Trent, Session V, explaining the correct interpretation of Hebrews 11: 6). These positive “articles of faith” have the function of fundamental principles which the faithful accepts without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, Who is absolute truth (Council of the Vatican). They represent the mind of Christ as St. Paul says:

1 Cor. 2:16. But we have the mind of Christ.
Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today: and the same for ever.
Since Our Catholic Faith comes from God, they are not open for debate, and they are not reversible.

The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes:

1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgement.
There is, then, no place for “pick and choose” in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself. If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel:

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.
The Catholic Church is infallible because it is :

1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.
If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, you have the link, just click and look for the following below which is it more fully: At the bottom you will find the conclusion which concerns the topic you asked for.
I put it in bold for you.

Dogmas of the Catholic Church. (Fundamentals)

The following De Fide statements comprise “Our Catholic Faith without which it is impossible to please God” (The Council of Trent, Session V, explaining the correct interpretation of Hebrews 11: 6). These positive “articles of faith” have the function of fundamental principles which the faithful accepts without discussion as being certain and sure by virtue of the authority of God, Who is absolute truth (Council of the Vatican). They represent the mind of Christ as St. Paul says:

1 Cor. 2:16. But we have the mind of Christ.
Hebrews 13:8. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today: and the same for ever.
Since Our Catholic Faith comes from God, they are not open for debate, and they are not reversible.

The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes:

1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgement.
There is, then, no place for “pick and choose” in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself. If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel:

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.
The Catholic Church is infallible because it is :

1 Tim 3:15. the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the truth.
If a baptized person deliberately denies or contradicts a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication.

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

Oh! Are you a Catholic who is rejecting the dogmas/doctrines of our faith? Then, yes, you are rejecting Christ and “barred” from heaven. But if you are not a Catholic (perhaps an ex-Catholic?) then we place all our hope in achieving unity of the faithful. Our Church says nothing about your going to hell if you are not a Catholic.

 

[christian1]

Oh! Are you a Catholic who is rejecting the dogmas/doctrines of our faith? Then, yes, you are rejecting Christ and “barred” from heaven. But if you are not a Catholic (perhaps an ex-Catholic?) then we place all our hope in achieving unity of the faithful. Our Church says nothing about your going to hell if you are not a Catholic.

PRmerger, don’t you get it?

If I want to be catholic, I have to embrace this. What is the blessed difference?

The perpetual virginity, the devotion, the adoration, the assumption, all of it!

And if you think you cannot properly worship/adore Mary and not suffer for it, read your dogmas carefully.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, don’t you get it?

If I want to be catholic, I have to embrace this.

Well, yes, you do! If you want to be a Catholic you must embrace all of Christ’s teachings. And the corollary, if you want to embrace all of Christ’s teachings, you must be a Catholic.

But if you deny the Assumption, the perpetual divinity of Mary, etc etc etc, our Church does not say that you, a non-Catholic, are beyond redemption.

 

[JRKH]

Oh! Are you a Catholic who is rejecting the dogmas/doctrines of our faith? Then, yes, you are rejecting Christ and “barred” from heaven. But if you are not a Catholic (perhaps an ex-Catholic?) then we place all our hope in achieving unity of the faithful. Our Church says nothing about your going to hell if you are not a Catholic.

PRmerger, don’t you get it?

If I want to be catholic, I have to embrace this. What is the blessed difference?

The perpetual virginity, the devotion, the adoration, the assumption, all of it!

And if you think you cannot properly worship/adore Mary and not suffer for it, read your dogmas carefully.

Perhaps I can offer a ray of hope to you Christian1. In the items you quoted you will note the following statement:

• If a baptized person **deliberately denies or contradicts *a dogma, he or she is guilty of sin of heresy

I will freely admit that, as a catholic, I do not fully understand all of the Dogma’s of the Church including the Marion dogma’s. I choose to accept them because the Church, who has the power to bind and loose, has declared them and She only did this after much study and prayer.
For this reason I give the Church the benefit of any doubts I, personally, have.
Therefore I do NOT deliberately deny or contradict the dogma’s.
So - questions or doubts do not automatically disqualify one from entering the Church. Simply excepting is sufficient. After All there are many things in the Church that we will never fully understand on this side of death.

As I posted earlier (perhaps you missed it), the thing that helped me the most with the Perpetual Virginity issue was to “put myself in Joseph’s shoes” as it were.
After learning that Mary was carrying a child conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is VERY likely (in my mind) that Joseph, being a God fearing man, would choose NOT to EVER have relations with Mary, the “eternally betrothed of the Holy Spirit”. Even though He was her earthly husband, I suspect he held her in appropriate awe considering that she was “Full of Grace”.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

Scandalous?

It’s shocking!

I will start another thread on the Apologetics forum to see if anyone more knowledgable than I can explain.

 

[Peter_J]

PRmerger

I am a seeker of truth for a very long time. I am not entirely ignorant as you might think on your doctrine and dogma but apparently you are.

I have the following to offer. Tell me if it’s in contradiction to what your church teaches:

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
[Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.]

Yes – and that dogmatic definition is still in effect today, and indeed will never cease to be in effect.

But as for the next part of the quotation …

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

That does not explicitly say that you will go to hell if you don’t agree with the Immaculate Conception. Granted, Pius IX does use the image of “shipwreck in the faith”, and he might have meant that you will go to hell if you don’t agree with the Immaculate Conception. I honestly don’t know. But even if he meant that, I and my fellow Catholics are not obliged to agree with him. (BTW, you should bear in mind that Pope Pius IX was a very unecumenical Pope.)

 

[christian1]

Peter: That does not explicitly say that you will go to hell if you don’t agree with the Immaculate Conception. Granted, Pius IX does use the image of “shipwreck in the faith”, and he might have meant that you will go to hell if you don’t agree with the Immaculate Conception. I honestly don’t know. But even if he meant that, I and my fellow Catholics are not obliged to agree with him. (BTW, you should bear in mind that Pope Pius IX was a very unecumenical Pope.)

---

Peter, it wasn’t Pope Pius IX, it was Pope Pius X and what exactly do you mean by unecuminical???

He wrote sixteen, and even if you don’t agree with fifteen of them, the ecuminical on Mary supports the dogma, therefore is widely accepted.