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

[Peter_J]

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.”

Thanks. I’m glad to know in advance, so it won’t come as a shock when it happens.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks. I’m glad to know in advance, so it won’t come as a shock when it happens.

Well, I guess I should give a caveat. If you go to, say a Mormon forum, it would be to your advantage to be able to articulate intelligently their beliefs. That is, one’s ignorance would show if one would be on a Mormon forum and say, “Well, is this the same tradition that tells you you can’t can’t receive blood transfusions?” (It’s Jehovah’s Witnesses that prohibit blood transfusions, as I’m sure you know.)

Just like it makes one’s ignorance show when someone comes to a Catholic forum and claims we Catholics profess that Mary’s mother was a virgin.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I guess I should give a caveat. If you go to, say a Mormon forum, it would be to your advantage to be able to articulate intelligently their beliefs. That is, one’s ignorance would show if one would be on a Mormon forum and say, “Well, is this the same tradition that tells you you can’t can’t receive blood transfusions?” (It’s Jehovah’s Witnesses that prohibit blood transfusions, as I’m sure you know.)

Just like it makes one’s ignorance show when someone comes to a Catholic forum and claims we Catholics profess that Mary’s mother was a virgin.

Ah, so that’s what justifies telling Protestants “you’re not a Catholic, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings” (or conversely, a Protestant saying to a Catholic “you’re not a Protestant, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings.”)

What was Fr. Brown liked to say? Something like “You’ll have to excuse me, I studied the old logic books.”

 

[PRmerger]

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?

The bolded part is quite a peculiar comment, coming from someone who objects to Catholic teaching on Mary. It seems to point to the fact that it is fitting that Jesus’ family would be singled out for their righteousness and purity.

If it seems absurd that God would choose a divorced man (indeed, it is absurd to think that!) to be Jesus’* foster* father, it is also absurd to think that God would choose a sinner to carry His Son in her womb for 9 months!

 

[guanophore]

The bolded part is quite a peculiar comment, coming from someone who objects to Catholic teaching on Mary. It seems to point to the fact that it is fitting that Jesus’ family would be singled out for their righteousness and purity.

If it seems absurd that God would choose a divorced man (indeed, it is absurd to think that!) to be Jesus’* foster* father, it is also absurd to think that God would choose a sinner to carry His Son in her womb for 9 months!

Good point!

 

[heiscominginthe]

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?”

I have had catholics argue this point. I am glad that is not the doctrine of the CC.

 

[heiscominginthe]

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

Interesting, but why is it not accepted as canon in our bibles?

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting, but why is it not accepted as canon in our bibles?

Presumably because the Catholic bishops at the time were not inspired, (through Sacred Tradition of course!) to include it.

 

[PRmerger]

heiscominginthe,

Just curious–what does your church teach about divorce?

 

[Good_Fella]

Interesting, but why is it not accepted as canon in our bibles?

The Protogospel of James was perhaps written over a century after the apostle’s death. The Church limited the Scriptures mainly to the apostles and to those who worked directly with them. So the Church judged the text as an uninspired work.

Joseph’s widowhood would then have been regarded as a legendary traditional account, but not necessarily a false one. We read in the Protogospel that Mary’s conception was miraculous. Ann and Joachim simply embraced each other for her conception to occur. This may seem rather fanciful, but this traditional belief originating in Palestine was confirmed by the Blessed Virgin Mary herself when she appeared and spoke to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. The visionary was also told that Joseph was a 45 year old bachelor at the time of his betrothal to Mary. Hence, the Protogospel is errant and the Church judged correctly when drawing up the Canon on a number of criteria.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[rtibs]

Interesting, but why is it not accepted as canon in our bibles?

heiscominginthe, your blissful innocence at things Catholic is truly refreshing, even as your counterparts take pains in giving you crash education on the Faith. There are to be sure a lot to learn especially how the canon of the NT came to be. Even as so many books and their stories were decided upon as uninspired, their contributions to church literature are immensely valuable, helping us understand the culture of the people God chose to appear to in history. At best, your having participated in a Catholic forum gives you more “truths” than you can ever hope for in whatever denomination you now belong. Why don’t you come home? There is simply so much to learn about the Faith, my finite brain could scarcely hold the so many interesting “truths” there are to be found.

 

[Peter_J]

Is this the same tradition that proclaims Mary herself was born of a virgin mother?

heiscominginthe,

Sorry, my earlier response to this ^^ was rather flippant. I thought you were just pulling something out of thin air.

Yes, there have in fact been Christians who claimed that Anne was a virgin when she gave birth to Mary. According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Anne

“Similarly, in the 4th century, and then much later in the 15th century, a belief arose that Mary was born of Anne by virgin birth. [6] Those believers included the 16th century mystic Valentine Weigel who claimed Anne conceived Mary by the power of the Holy spirit. This belief was also condemned as an error by the Catholic Church in 1677.”

Make a note of that: not only is it not an official Catholic teaching, but it has actually been condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

[JRKH]

Interesting, but why is it not accepted as canon in our bibles?

I see that others have already given some good answers here but I will add my 2cents.

Let me first say that this is a good question to ask. It opens the path to a greater knowledge of the early Church through those who lived and wrote at that time. Namely the Church Fathers.

First I would suggest that you look at the listing of Early writings contained on the site I linked. (look a the bottom of the page for the button to the listings.) You’ll see that there are a great many - All written before the canonization of the NT. These books were all well regarded in at least some portion of the Church at the time. Of course many of these books are dated well after the death of the Apostles.

Secondly - You will note that note even all of the books written during the “Apostolic Age” have been included in the NT canon. This does not mean that they do not contain “Truths”. By that I mean that, If something is “False” then we know it cannot have been “Inspired” by God. However - If something written is true, it still may not be “inspired” of God. For instance - in our discussion here about Mary. The question of Joseph’s condition (widowed or batchelor) at the time of their betrothal is of no direct consequence. It might simply be more an issue of “Clarification” for those early christians who wondered about it. It may not have been considered an “inspired” Word of God, but it could certainly still be true. (I hope that makes sense)

Third - As others have tried to show, the criteria for inclusion in the NT canon was quite strict and restrictive. Thus there were any number of books and letters written at or near the time of th Apostles that contain much information of value but were not included in the Canon. The issues of inclusion were not so “Black and White” as to be able to say that this book is completely true and inspired and that one is completely false and uninspired. This is why the Church is of such value to the Christian. By Her deep historical tradition and continuing study, she understands quite well what may be of great value in the non-canonized books, and what is of little or no value.

 

[MDK]

Is this the same tradition that proclaims Mary herself was born of a virgin mother?

Protestantism includes the self criticism of their own wayward fancies. I’ve never yet met a Protestant who fully understands Catholicism, but that never keeps them from criticizing their own faulty conceptions of Catholicism. It’s like watching a dog chase their own tail.

 

[MDK]

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,
Nevertheless, once must work in the context of these two realities when considering Catholic and Protestant discussions.

In reality, there are no valid criticisms of the true Catholic teachings, because the forming of such were protected by God.

In reality, there are very valid criticisms of Protestantism, because Protestant faith systems are made of men’s own interpretations that are not protected by God… and are often simply made from and/or sustained by men’s ignornace, pridefulness and/or arrogance.

Are you okay with these, or do you experience difficulties with these realities…, or do they bother you for some reason?

 

[MDK]

Ah, so that’s what justifies telling Protestants “you’re not a Catholic, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings” (or conversely, a Protestant saying to a Catholic “you’re not a Protestant, so of course you don’t know and understand all of our teachings.”)

What was Fr. Brown liked to say? Something like “You’ll have to excuse me, I studied the old logic books.”

Is there a necessary point you’re attempting to make here that I’m missing? So, when you speak of no justifiable reason for something, are you engaging in projection from your own posts which are attempting to berate someone who made a valid point? Please keep it charitable in the service of the truth.

 

[MDK]

Is this the same tradition that proclaims Mary herself was born of a virgin mother?

There is no Catholic Tradition that teaches that Anne was a virgin giving birth to Mary. Many people confuse the Immaculate Conception with the Virgin Birth.

The Immaculate Conception is Anne and Joachim’s conception of Mary which by God’s grace occurred without Mary having original sin. Christ saved her by keeping her from going into original sin.

The Virgin Birth involves Mary as well, but is Christ’s birth.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I see that others have already given some good answers here but I will add my 2cents.

Let me first say that this is a good question to ask. It opens the path to a greater knowledge of the early Church through those who lived and wrote at that time. Namely the Church Fathers.

First I would suggest that you look at the listing of Early writings contained on the site I linked. (look a the bottom of the page for the button to the listings.) You’ll see that there are a great many - All written before the canonization of the NT. These books were all well regarded in at least some portion of the Church at the time. Of course many of these books are dated well after the death of the Apostles.

Secondly - You will note that note even all of the books written during the “Apostolic Age” have been included in the NT canon. This does not mean that they do not contain “Truths”. By that I mean that, If something is “False” then we know it cannot have been “Inspired” by God. However - If something written is true, it still may not be “inspired” of God. For instance - in our discussion here about Mary. The question of Joseph’s condition (widowed or batchelor) at the time of their betrothal is of no direct consequence. It might simply be more an issue of “Clarification” for those early christians who wondered about it. It may not have been considered an “inspired” Word of God, but it could certainly still be true. (I hope that makes sense)

Third - As others have tried to show, the criteria for inclusion in the NT canon was quite strict and restrictive. Thus there were any number of books and letters written at or near the time of th Apostles that contain much information of value but were not included in the Canon. The issues of inclusion were not so “Black and White” as to be able to say that this book is completely true and inspired and that one is completely false and uninspired. This is why the Church is of such value to the Christian. By Her deep historical tradition and continuing study, she understands quite well what may be of great value in the non-canonized books, and what is of little or no value.

First, before coming to this forum and probably two maybe three years ago, I found sites listing early christain writings. Now, the ones that I feel are credible are of those who actually associated with the apostles. Yet, as time pasted after their death, the writings in my opinion could not be looked upon as scripture for many were created for the sole purpose of discrediting the gospel.

Second, I agree with you on the most part, but I feel that which should be accepted is that which was in the majority of Holy Writs from all the churches. The apostles were very careful to make sure each church established contained the same scripture so they could remain in one accord.

Third, I believe my answers above answer this.

 

[JRKH]

I am assuming that your answers below are related to my “1st 2nd and 3rd” responses so I my responses below are with that thought.
In general it should be noted that I was not trying in any way to assert that writings not included in the Holy Bible should be looked upon in the same was as those that were. There are of course differences.

First I would suggest that you look at the listing of Early writings contained on the site I linked. You’ll see that there are a great many - All written before the canonization of the NT. These books were all well regarded in at least some portion of the Church at the time. Of course many of these books are dated well after the death of the Apostles.

In all likelihood you are right that there were many heretical writings around in the early days as well as many good sound writings. The Gnostic and Arian heresies are quite early and some of their writings seem to have survived to today.
That being said though, there are many good writings by men who were closely associated with the Apostles and their immediate successors. These are the ones which the Church looks to as “useful” though not “inspired” in the “Word of God” sense. The deep and rich history and Spirit guided Protestion that is part of The Historic Church that gives us confidence to know which is which is which.
It can be likened to what goes on here. You are quite outspoken in your views on how Christians should believe and have even said to me that you have recieved your beliefs by “Unction” of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that you believe that what you write here is “Inspired” in a “Biblical” sense?
Probably not.
Does that mean that what you write does not contain ANYthing of worth?
Also, Probably not. For in discussions writings by sincere Christians there can be many “kernals” and “seeds” that are of great use.

Secondly - You will note that note even all of the books written during the “Apostolic Age” have been included in the NT canon. This does not mean that they do not contain “Truths”. By that I mean that, If something is “False” then we know it cannot have been “Inspired” by God. However - If something written is true, it still may not be “inspired” of God. For instance - in our discussion here about Mary. The question of Joseph’s condition (widowed or batchelor) at the time of their betrothal is of no direct consequence. It might simply be more an issue of “Clarification” for those early christians who wondered about it. It may not have been considered an “inspired” Word of God, but it could certainly still be true. (I hope that makes sense)

Second, I agree with you on the most part, but I feel that which should be accepted is that which was in the majority of Holy Writs from all the churches. The apostles were very careful to make sure each church established contained the same scripture so they could remain in one accord.

I’m not sure how you can say that the Apostles were careful to make sure that All of the Churches had the same Scripture since most of the Gospels weren’t written until after most of the Apostles were dead. I do agree that the apostles were careful to assure that they were all teaching the same Gospel - Orally and that this was faithfully passed on so that when the time came for the assembling of the NT, the Church had a solid Oral Tradition of teaching upon which to base the selection of the NT books.
Of course the Apostles did have the OT scripture which they would certainly have tried to keep the same across the Church and which The Church faithfully placed in the Bible. Of course some of these OT Scriptures that the Apostles were careful to make sure that each Church contained and that the Later Church carefully preserved in the Bible, were later removed by the Protestant reformers.

Third - As others have tried to show, the criteria for inclusion in the NT canon was quite strict and restrictive. Thus there were any number of books and letters written at or near the time of th Apostles that contain much information of value but were not included in the Canon. The issues of inclusion were not so “Black and White” as to be able to say that this book is completely true and inspired and that one is completely false and uninspired. This is why the Church is of such value to the Christian. By Her deep historical tradition and continuing study, she understands quite well what may be of great value in the non-canonized books, and what is of little or no value.

Third, I believe my answers above answer this.

I’m not so sure it does.
The simple reason is because I believe that you are not looking at these things in a historical light but rather in a “Black and White” sense. By that I mean that, If it’s in the Bible it’s ALL True and if it’s not in the Bible it’s ALL false.
While we, as Christians accept the first statement as true, it does not follow that the second part is also true. That is all I am trying to convey.

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

I have had catholics argue this point. I am glad that is not the doctrine of the CC.

It is a sad fact that there are many poorly catechized Catholics.

heiscominginthe;5169619:

Interesting, but why is it not accepted as canon in our bibles?

That is kinda beside the point, isn’t it? You asked about the origin or source of the Catholic belief that Joseph was previously married, and had a passle of kids. This is one of the early sources.

There were hundreds of books that contained Apostolic Teaching at the time the council met to determine the canon. All but 27 were excluded. This does not mean that some of them did not contain inspired teaching, as they do, but they did not, as whole documents, meet all the criteria for inclusion. They are still valuable as testiments of history and records of belief at the time (some of it early heresies).

The Catholic Church did not just “make it up” at some later date. It was what the Church received from the Apostles.

First, before coming to this forum and probably two maybe three years ago, I found sites listing early christain writings. Now, the ones that I feel are credible are of those who actually associated with the apostles. Yet, as time pasted after their death, the writings in my opinion could not be looked upon as scripture for many were created for the sole purpose of discrediting the gospel.

Second, I agree with you on the most part, but I feel that which should be accepted is that which was in the majority of Holy Writs from all the churches. The apostles were very careful to make sure each church established contained the same scripture so they could remain in one accord.

Third, I believe my answers above answer this.

Yes, there were many documents claiming to be inspired that were to promote heresies. Most of them from that period were Gnostic. However, the documents still have great historical value, and help us to understand how the believers understood and practiced what the Apostles taught.

I am not sure what you mean by “make sure each church contained the same scripture”. The NT did not exist at that time, and the Apostles used the Septuagint as their scriptures. This is a large collection, expensive, and difficult to duplicate. Complete collections took years to complete by candle or oil lamp in with pen on parchment or skin. Most of the Churches did not have their own copy of the Scriptures. This is one of the reasons the Apostolic Succession was so important.