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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Always_For_Him
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
christian1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Publicly contesting a divine truth revealed to us by the Church is a sin against the Holy Spirit. I doubt non-Catholic Christians who privately reject the Church’s Marian dogmas in their blindness risk forfeiting eternal life.

Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”
John 9, 41
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.
Click to expand...
God further said to Abraham,"As for your wife Sarai, do not call her Sarai; her name shall be Sarah.* I will bless her, and I will give you a son by her. Him also will I bless**; he shall give rise to nations, and rulers of peoples shall issue from him. Your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. I will maintain my covenant with him as an everlasting pact, to be his God and the God of his descendants after him."*
Genesis 17, 15-16, 19

Sarah noticed the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing with her son Isaac; so she demanded of Abraham: "Drive out that slave and her son!* No son of that slave is going to share the inheritance with my son Isaac!**" Abraham was greatly distressed, especially on account of his son Ishmael. But God said to Abraham: “Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Heed the demands of Sarah, no matter what she is asking of you; for it is through Isaac descendants shall bear your name.”*
Genesis 21, 9-13

Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Luke 1, 30-33

And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.”
Luke 1, 42

Sarah, the free woman of promise and Matriarch of the Old Covenant, prefigures Mary, the free woman of promise and Matriarch of the New Covenant. Both women miraculously conceived and bore an only son by the grace of God and not of natural law. Isaac was born free from slavery unlike his step brother Ishmael who was born in bondage. Jesus was born free from the slavery of sin. As a type of Sarah, Mary gave birth to no children subjected to the slavery of sin. Her other offspring are those of us who have been reborn in the Spirit and are the true heirs of promise (Jn 19:26-27;Rom 8:29; Rev 12:17).

Pax Christu :harp:
 
Tried the new link and it itsn’t coming up.

Don’t want to defile the thread topic any longer with off topic stuff, so, could somebody direct me as to how to get to this link?

Thanks in advance
 
christian1 said:
Tried the new link and it itsn’t coming up.

Don’t want to defile the thread topic any longer with off topic stuff, so, could somebody direct me as to how to get to this link?

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the link to start a new thread?
In what forum are you trying it?

Peace
James
 
Good_Fella said:
Where is it written in the scriptures that the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome? Do you deny their martyrdom because it isn’t recorded in the New Testament? 🤷
Click to expand...
Yes, and also what about the Holy Trinity? The word Trinity is not in Scriptures either.

We see that one cannot honestly and genuinely seek the Truth above all, and forever remain Protestant.

However, one can be stuck on personal pride and forever remain Protestant.
 
christian1 said:
…I am a seeker of truth for a very long time…
Click to expand...
Good advice is not to quit your day job just yet if you’re banking on having the truth! You’ve got far too little of it evidenced by your own demonstrations here.

If you honestly seek the truth, you will eventually become Roman Catholic! Otherwise, you’re deluding yourself about what is and is not truth.

Secondly, if you are fortunate to make it by God’s grace into Heaven, then you will become Catholic at that time. There is only one Faith in Heaven… which is the one God established.

There is only one Church which Christ built… existing on Earth, and in Purgatory, and in Heaven… it is the Catholic Church with the successor of Peter as visible head while the King is away on His Throne. If you want to know some of the things going on in Heaven, then go to a Catholic Mass.
 
To christian1 and all like-minded “seekers of the truth”: Much “truth” has been proferred and expounded just on this thread alone by your Catholic brothers, and still not getting “it” reflects the mind set of most protestants: Catholics are ignorant of their faith and need to be evangelized, to be saved, no matter what they say. Catholics have never been so aware and more knowledgeable of their faith at any point in history than today, no matter that many have converted to other religions. To seek for the truth may not be the same as the biblical exhortation of seeking for God’s kingdom or his kingship. For truth seeking could well serve only the self, what it perceives as convenient and painless. In the name of freedom, it shuns authority, even if that authority has been telling the truth for ages. The Church, the one founded by Christ through Peter, His first Pope has been telling you: It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, the hallmarks of Authority, of the one true repository of Faith. All Catholics respect that Authority and even if one does not read the bible, one knows the interpretation is correct and trusts the Church for his/her salvation. You do not have any authority to interpret the bible privately, and whatever truth you say or others say will never have any ring of authority in it because the voice of the Good Shepherd is simply not there. It is sad to note that many are ignoring the voice of the Divine Master and chose the beaten path to perdition. It is our prayer that as the Good Shepherd says, you hear his voice voice, the true voice, that there may be one flock, one Shepherd. God bless you. :signofcross:
 
MDK said:
Yes, and also what about the Holy Trinity? The word Trinity is not in Scriptures either.
Click to expand...
The Scriptures certainly fail to define the Trinity according to our orthodox belief. One can just as easily acquire a tritheistic conception of the Trinity as in Mormonism by referring to the Bible alone. But Paul assures Timothy that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and Peter warns us that no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation.

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
1 Corinthians 11, 2

“They who are placed without the Church, cannot attain to any understanding of the divine word. For the ship exhibits a type of Church, the word of life placed and preached within it which, they who are without, and lie near like barren and useless sands, cannot understand.”
Hilary of Poitiers (A.D. 355)

“But beyond these Scriptural sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.”
Athanasius (A.D. 362)

“Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the Church alone, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth.”
Ambrose (A.D.388)

Pax Christu :harp:
 
Where is your proof from the word of God that he wasn’t?
Click to expand...
Peace
James
Click to expand...
Okay, then show me where if not in scripture that Joseph was married before. Don’t you think that it was looked down upon to aquire a divorse? And isn’t it silly to believe the Lord would choose a man who was divorsed to be the earthly Father of Jesus?
 
heiscominginthe said:
Okay, then show me where if not in scripture that Joseph was married before. Don’t you think that it was looked down upon to aquire a divorse? And isn’t it silly to believe the Lord would choose a man who was divorsed to be the earthly Father of Jesus?
Click to expand...
Widower. Not divorced.

And it’s from tradition (small “t”). Catholics are not required to believe this. 🤷
 
heiscominginthe said:
Is this the same tradition that proclaims Mary herself was born of a virgin mother?
Click to expand...
LOL. I’m not sure what tradition that is, but it’s definitely not a Catholic tradition. Mary’s parents were Anne and Joachim.

Perhaps you’re thinking of the tradition that Mary was Immaculately Conceived?
 
heiscominginthe said:
Okay, then show me where if not in scripture that Joseph was married before. Don’t you think that it was looked down upon to aquire a divorse? And isn’t it silly to believe the Lord would choose a man who was divorsed to be the earthly Father of Jesus?
Click to expand...
Here is a link to one of the oldest artistic representations of the story of James, the brother of the Lord.

Yes, it would be very looked down upon to acquire a divorce. Had Joseph done this, he would not have been considered a “just” man. Yes, I agree, it would be silly choose such a faithless man.

what is interesting even more, is that you seemed to immediately assume that he was divorced! This really says more about you, than it does Joseph. 😉

No, Joseph was a widower, and was asked by the elders to take custody of Mary, who was a consecrated virgin. He was older, and already had his children. This representation of James is consistent with all of them, in that he appears to be a teenager when he accompanied Jesus to Egypt with his father.

The Orthodox have preserved a great many traditions and stories about the Holy Family in Egypt. This part of the church is under the Eastern traditions.
heiscominginthe said:
Is this the same tradition that proclaims Mary herself was born of a virgin mother?
Click to expand...
No. I am not sure where that came from, but it is certainly not from the ancient Apostolic Church. I always thought it was a modern error.

No, the Church has always believed that Mary was conceived through the normal marital embrace of Joachim and Anne.
 
heiscominginthe said:
Is this the same tradition that proclaims Mary herself was born of a virgin mother?
Click to expand...
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Who says* that? *

I understand that you’re not a Catholic, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings. However, you really should inform yourself better if you’re going to post on a Catholic forum. I would never go to a Jewish forum and proclaim, “Since you all believe in Shiva, where is that in your Koran?”
 
heiscominginthe said:
Okay, then show me where if not in scripture that Joseph was married before…
Click to expand...
I see others have given you some answers to this question but I will provide you with a link to the ’Infancy Gospel of James" which contains the pertinant information.

In paragraph 7 is contained information on Mary’s being received into the Temple at three years old as a Virgin

In Paragraph 8 it tells of how, when Mary was 12 yo the Temple Priests decided that she should be wed to a widower for her protection.
*“And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be.” *

Paragraph 9 includes the statement by Joseph that He already has Children.
*But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God,…And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping." *

So - Here we have a document - most likely written (According to the site which contains it) around 140-170 AD that says that Joseph was a widower and that he had other children. This answers your question that relates back to the someones previous statement that Joseph was previously married.

Peace
James
 
PRmerger, I find it curious that you said “I understand that you’re not a Catholic, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings.”

Does this also work the other way? I.e. should I expect Protestant to say to me “I understand that you’re not a Protestant, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings.”
 
Peter_J said:
PRmerger, I find it curious that you said “I understand that you’re not a Catholic, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings.”

Does this also work the other way? I.e. should I expect Protestant to say to me “I understand that you’re not a Protestant, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings.”
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed.

I would never expect a Protestant to ask me to explain the Rapture to them. Or why they don’t baptize infants. Or why they think the Lord’s day should be on Saturday. Or why they don’t accept the deutero-canonicals…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top