Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[ProudJesusFreak]

What is your definition of prove? You can show me something which PROVES Christ actually came to earth, suffered and died for us? You can PROVE that salvation is by faith alone? You can PROVE this because a BOOK says so?? You have FAITH that all of it is true. Just as I have faith that Peter was the rock that Christ built His Church on, and that baptism and obedience are also required for salvation. But we can’t PROVE anything. That’s the point I was trying to make with Howie. And I’m sure he would agree. I’m not sure why you don’t. I can’t prove to you my autobiography is true just by giving it to you to read, can I? That’s the claim you’re making with the Bible.

Look, I believe the Bible 100%. But it’s NOT because the Bible itself says it’s all true. I believe it because men Christ appointed wrote it and canonized it, and I align myself with them, and their successors to show me the true faith of Christianity, because they were incipient to the Bible. I declare the Bible inerrant because they declare it to be so, and I trust in them…which is also saying “I put my trust fully in Christ, who appointed them”. And I know you trust fully in Christ too, but you put much of your trust also in humans who teach you what the Bible means. In fact, just about everybody trusts the humans they’re taught by MORE than they trust their Bibles. This is just reality, whether admitted or not, and it attests to the fact that we must align ourselves with the ones who were truly SENT to teach and shepherd us.

That’s a cheap shot, and an uncharitable generalization. I wonder how many pastors you’ve eagerly listened to and agreed with their teaching, that aren’t nearly as righteous as you might imagine them to be.

First let me say that there are NONE that are righteous.

I don’t know how else to explain this to you. I believe in the bible. I believe what the bible says. I go by what the bible says. My beliefs come directly from scripture, therefore, I can prove biblically where my beliefs come from.I can say “I believe that Jesus is the Head of the church” and I can show scripture where it tells us that Christ is the head of the church.

Ephesians 4:15 “Speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him, who is the Head- Christ.”

Ephesians 5:23" For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and the Savior of the body"

Colossians 1:18 “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn of the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence”.

(Does that make more sense?)

With the exception of Matthew, there is no evidence of ‘succession’.

Scientists and the such do have the ancient documents which verify that Jesus Christ did exist and was crucified and did the things that the bible says He did.

I never said that sexual abuse doesn’t happen in other churches. I said that the Catholic church covers it up. Moving abusers to other parishes and paying off families for silence and threatening ex-communication. Any ‘organization’ and I do mean ANY that does not do anything to stop this kind of thing when it is known, is just wrong. I would say the same for any kind of church that tolerates that kind of behavior. It is hard to trust someone who participates in those actions, either the actual abuser or the ones that help cover it up.

“Bottom line…this problem has NOTHING to do with where authentic Christianity really lies.”

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with it. Honestly, do you think that Christ would tolerate or approve ANY church that would allow sexual predators to remain in the church to attack and abuse other children? If these men where really of God, the thought of sexual abusing and molesting would never cross their mind, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[SteveGC]

I don’t know how else to explain this to you. I believe in the bible. I believe what the bible says. I go by what the bible says. My beliefs come directly from scripture, therefore, I can prove biblically where my beliefs come from.I can say “I believe that Jesus is the Head of the church” and I can show scripture where it tells us that Christ is the head of the church.

You can’t prove it. You can only make a case for it, with varying degrees of success. Proof is subjective, not objective. Truth is the only thing objective. Look. Lets just drop this subject. It was a point I made to another poster anyway. By PROVE I meant show undeniable evidence for, which clearly Scripture cannot do, because they’re mere words on paper. Your biblical interpretation which “proves” baptism as symbolic only, for example, is not PROVEN to me. It is your belief, not mine. Throw as much scripture at me that you want. I will never believe in baptism as anything except salvific. Scripture may prove it to YOU, but not to me. Scripture proves to me that it is necessary for salvation. Again, it’s subjective, which is the point I tried to make. Something OUTSIDE of Scripture must be able to tell us who is right. And the Holy Spirit, invoked by both of us, is not the answer. That’s ‘proven’. What IS the answer is the Holy Spirit, invoked by specific MEN, The Church. The same men who EXCLUSIVELY received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which marked the birth of The Church.

I never said that sexual abuse doesn’t happen in other churches. I said that the Catholic church covers it up. Moving abusers to other parishes and paying off families for silence and threatening ex-communication. Any ‘organization’ and I do mean ANY that does not do anything to stop this kind of thing when it is known, is just wrong. I would say the same for any kind of church that tolerates that kind of behavior. It is hard to trust someone who participates in those actions, either the actual abuser or the ones that help cover it up.

Ok. fair enough, my mistake for thinking you were targeting the Church as the lone perpetration of molestation. Do you, by the way, have any figures on the precise amount of “cover ups” that were done, compared to the actual number of verified cases? Or is your comment a generalization based on certain media coverage over the years?

Honestly, do you think that Christ would tolerate or approve ANY church that would allow sexual predators to remain in the church to attack and abuse other children? If these men where really of God, the thought of sexual abusing and molesting would never cross their mind, wouldn’t you agree?

I believe in God’s Grace, AND free will, working harmoniously to bring about the salvation of all. No one said The Catholic Church is 100% full of righteous men. I imagine there will always be stories of sinful, perhaps even despicable, activity in the ranks. I believe it will also be quite rare, as even these sex scandal cases were rare, when compared to the entire Church body. So, I don’t think that the events of this recent scandal has anything to do with discernment of authentic Christian teaching. It’s still The Catholic Church, even with Her occasional problems with fallen humans. The gates of Hell will not prevail. Sounds to me like you took a huge swing away from the Church based on this very subject. That’s a shame.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

oh well, i guess the words of Jesus don’t mean much to you, here is one not taken out of context:

John 6:24 When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. 25 And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” 26 Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” 28 So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent."

i emphasize in bold so you could focus in on what Christ told after the inquired of what work the must do of God to gain eternal life. the whole dialogue is there not taken out of context. please don’t take this to the other topic we spoke of that has been abandoned.

believe

Jesus saves

God bless you

 

[SteveGC]

oh well, i guess the words of Jesus don’t mean much to you, here is one not taken out of context:

John 6:24 When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. 25 And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” 26 Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27 Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” 28 So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent."

i emphasize in bold so you could focus in on what Christ told after the inquired of what work the must do of God to gain eternal life. the whole dialogue is there not taken out of context. please don’t take this to the other topic we spoke of that has been abandoned.

believe

Jesus saves

God bless you

Alright. Define “believe”.

You seem to think it’s encapsulated down to a profession of faith, and MAYBE obedience, maybe. That’s not belief. Belief is faith in EVERYTHING CHRIST TEACHES…EVERYTHING HE REQUIRES FOR OUR SALVATION. ALL OF IT. Not just ‘hey I believe in you, Jesus’. That doesn’t cut it. You can’t show me even in two successive posts on this thread full of copied and pasted bible verses, what salvation requires…you would have to paste the entire canon here…and THEN we have to work on interpreting it properly…and you know how I would demand that be done. (hint: not by you or me).

Jerry, why does Scripture also say “Baptism now saves you”

And please, stop insulting me with this nonsense…

“oh well, i guess the words of Jesus don’t mean much to you”

You ever hear me say anything like that to you? You have NO idea how much the words of Jesus mean to me.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

steve baptism doesn’t save.

check this out my friend:
But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

You can’t prove it. You can only make a case for it, with varying degrees of success. Proof is subjective, not objective. Truth is the only thing objective. Look. Lets just drop this subject. It was a point I made to another poster anyway. By PROVE I meant show undeniable evidence for, which clearly Scripture cannot do, because they’re mere words on paper. Your biblical interpretation which “proves” baptism as symbolic only, for example, is not PROVEN to me. It is your belief, not mine. Throw as much scripture at me that you want. I will never believe in baptism as anything except salvific. Scripture may prove it to YOU, but not to me. Scripture proves to me that it is necessary for salvation. Again, it’s subjective, which is the point I tried to make. Something OUTSIDE of Scripture must be able to tell us who is right. And the Holy Spirit, invoked by both of us, is not the answer. That’s ‘proven’. What IS the answer is the Holy Spirit, invoked by specific MEN, The Church. The same men who EXCLUSIVELY received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which marked the birth of The Church.{QUOTE

{QUOTE}Ok. fair enough, my mistake for thinking you were targeting the Church as the lone perpetration of molestation. Do you, by the way, have any figures on the precise amount of “cover ups” that were done, compared to the actual number of verified cases? Or is your comment a generalization based on certain media coverage over the years?{QUOTE

{QUOTE}I believe in God’s Grace, AND free will, working harmoniously to bring about the salvation of all. No one said The Catholic Church is 100% full of righteous men. I imagine there will always be stories of sinful, perhaps even despicable, activity in the ranks. I believe it will also be quite rare, as even these sex scandal cases were rare, when compared to the entire Church body. So, I don’t think that the events of this recent scandal has anything to do with discernment of authentic Christian teaching. It’s still The Catholic Church, even with Her occasional problems with fallen humans. The gates of Hell will not prevail. Sounds to me like you took a huge swing away from the Church based on this very subject. That’s a shame.

I have not said anything regarding baptism so how can you know what 'my" interpretation of it is? We are to be baptized for the remission of sin. I agree that it is necessary with the exceptions that God makes(for example, the thief on the cross was an exception).

One major case that I know of is a Father O’Grady. The church found out and just moved him over a parish.

It is both, I have heard of many cases that they tried to quietly deal with and of course, that type of thing is in the media, both Catholic priests and protestant ministers. I do not put it all on one sect, that would be foolish of me. However, it is my own personal opinion that the celibacy thing might have something to do with it for priests. Or it could just be that they are disgusting people, same with any protestant minister that does it.

I am not trying to attack anyone. I have issues with the teachings of the catholic church as it is my opinion(I use that phrase to be fair) that some of its teachings are against scripture. It is not the individuals that I have problems with. I have a lot of Catholic friends and a large amount of my family is Catholic(I’m Irish and Italian so lots if Catholics). It is small things that just add up to larger issues. Like for instance, saying that Peter was the head of the Church, when Peter Himself says it is Christ and that Christ is the Rock.

 

[ProudJesusFreak]

You can’t prove it. You can only make a case for it, with varying degrees of success. Proof is subjective, not objective. Truth is the only thing objective. Look. Lets just drop this subject. It was a point I made to another poster anyway. By PROVE I meant show undeniable evidence for, which clearly Scripture cannot do, because they’re mere words on paper. Your biblical interpretation which “proves” baptism as symbolic only, for example, is not PROVEN to me. It is your belief, not mine. Throw as much scripture at me that you want. I will never believe in baptism as anything except salvific. Scripture may prove it to YOU, but not to me. Scripture proves to me that it is necessary for salvation. Again, it’s subjective, which is the point I tried to make. Something OUTSIDE of Scripture must be able to tell us who is right. And the Holy Spirit, invoked by both of us, is not the answer. That’s ‘proven’. What IS the answer is the Holy Spirit, invoked by specific MEN, The Church. The same men who EXCLUSIVELY received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which marked the birth of The Church./QUOTE]

Steve, biblically, I CAN prove it. Like the example I gave. I believe that Jesus is the Head of the church and I gave scripture that proves that that is what I believe.

 

[MrS]

I am beginning to think my Bible is missing something, perhaps:

.

Matthew 29: 1,ff …(Somebody’s sermon in the valley…sure was not Jesus)

And again as was just commissioned, let it stand corrected and thus, go forth, hand out letters to all nations, and let them read for themselves and interpret for themselves… let them do the work but not call it work.

Let them have their sinners prayer and their altar call, for they need not have an altar at all.

Let them hire their own faith leaders who will teach them what they want to hear.

Let them demean THE Church to make their building look like the real center of truth.

Let them call upon the Holy Spirit as the one who teaches different things to different groups.

Let them refrain from the Baptism of water AND the Holy Spirit… until they feel a once in a lifetime moment of salvation. Do not prevent them from this experience when it happens again and again (thanks Abe).

Let them walk away from the tough sayings they read… and call it just symbolic, for they can determine on their own what IS and what is not.

Let them self interpret, for they are bound to find another to agree with them… and thus they have found their truth.

Let them be encouraged to memorize a verse, memorize a meaning to that verse, and memorize a response to reject that which can teach them of their error.

Let them justify divorce, contraception, and even fornication, for relativism will become the way for many.

Let them be wary… for In God’s time, He will open their eyes, offer them the graces necessary, and return them to the one fold. For there is but One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism eek, and sooner or later they will have to admit that.

Let them be called believers. Just don’t confuse the issue by requiring a full and trusting belief in all the Truth… which will be found in the letters they read, but interpret on their own to their own destruction.

Let them be satisfied with their accomplishments, thinking that what they do is from above.

Let them adapt to their beliefs to a current life’s needs, for the truth about Truth is not for humans to really understand.

Let them know when to respond and when to remain silent. If someone from THE Church tries to explain the promises, the instructions, the commands found earlier in this letter… delay, ignore, confuse… for the members of THE Church will often stop trying and their numbers will be filled with the lazy.

Finally, if you are troubled by one or more teaching of your group… simply call on the Holy Spirit and start your own group. Good Luck with that.

.

 

[josie_L]

Alright. Define “believe”.

You seem to think it’s encapsulated down to a profession of faith, and MAYBE obedience, maybe. That’s not belief. Belief is faith in EVERYTHING CHRIST TEACHES…EVERYTHING HE REQUIRES FOR OUR SALVATION. ALL OF IT. Not just ‘hey I believe in you, Jesus’. That doesn’t cut it. You can’t show me even in two successive posts on this thread full of copied and pasted bible verses, what salvation requires…you would have to paste the entire canon here…and THEN we have to work on interpreting it properly…and you know how I would demand that be done. (hint: not by you or me).

Jerry, why does Scripture also say “Baptism now saves you”

And please, stop insulting me with this nonsense…

“oh well, i guess the words of Jesus don’t mean much to you”

You ever hear me say anything like that to you? You have NO idea how much the words of Jesus mean to me.

He is convinced in my mind that belief and/or faith mean a verbal/intellectual/emotional assent (of Jesus as Lord and Saviour) and nothing more.

The NT specifies or highlights everywhere how one should live if they are to believe in and accept Jesus as Christ, otherwise they can and will lose their salvation through mortal sin.

Jerry Marino has been deceived by the man/men who introduced him to this heretical OSAS. We must pray for him.

 

[josie_L]

SteveGC;5005901:

You can’t prove it. You can only make a case for it, with varying degrees of success. Proof is subjective, not objective. Truth is the only thing objective. Look. Lets just drop this subject. It was a point I made to another poster anyway. By PROVE I meant show undeniable evidence for, which clearly Scripture cannot do, because they’re mere words on paper. Your biblical interpretation which “proves” baptism as symbolic only, for example, is not PROVEN to me. It is your belief, not mine. Throw as much scripture at me that you want. I will never believe in baptism as anything except salvific. Scripture may prove it to YOU, but not to me. Scripture proves to me that it is necessary for salvation. Again, it’s subjective, which is the point I tried to make. Something OUTSIDE of Scripture must be able to tell us who is right. And the Holy Spirit, invoked by both of us, is not the answer. That’s ‘proven’. What IS the answer is the Holy Spirit, invoked by specific MEN, The Church. The same men who EXCLUSIVELY received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which marked the birth of The Church./QUOTE]

Steve, biblically, I CAN prove it. Like the example I gave. I believe that Jesus is the Head of the church and I gave scripture that proves that that is what I believe.

We has Catholics believe Jesus is Head of the Church in its entirety (in Heaven and on Earth), that being said, he still did leave us with a representative, a person of singular authority (to lead us) here on Earth, who would in the words of our Lord, “feed my sheep” and “take care of my sheep” that person to whom he was speaking to was none other than Peter (this Peter was also given the power to loose and bind by Jesus). Peter has first Pope was given authority (and was protected by Jesus as per his promise in Matthew 16) to tend and feed the flock till the time came when Jesus would return.

 

[SteveGC]

steve baptism doesn’t save.

I didn’t ask you if it saves or not. I asked you, why does the Bible say it does.

check this out my friend:
But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.

Check this out? As if this is something novel to me? I know this Jerry. I just wonder why you think it should be done outside of the light of the Church to which the Holy Spirit was given for this purpose.

 

[SteveGC]

I have not said anything regarding baptism so how can you know what 'my" interpretation of it is? We are to be baptized for the remission of sin. I agree that it is necessary with the exceptions that God makes(for example, the thief on the cross was an exception).

One major case that I know of is a Father O’Grady. The church found out and just moved him over a parish.

It is both, I have heard of many cases that they tried to quietly deal with and of course, that type of thing is in the media, both Catholic priests and protestant ministers. I do not put it all on one sect, that would be foolish of me. However, it is my own personal opinion that the celibacy thing might have something to do with it for priests. Or it could just be that they are disgusting people, same with any protestant minister that does it.

I am not trying to attack anyone. I have issues with the teachings of the catholic church as it is my opinion(I use that phrase to be fair) that some of its teachings are against scripture. It is not the individuals that I have problems with. I have a lot of Catholic friends and a large amount of my family is Catholic(I’m Irish and Italian so lots if Catholics). It is small things that just add up to larger issues. Like for instance, saying that Peter was the head of the Church, when Peter Himself says it is Christ and that Christ is the Rock.

I was using baptism as a mere example. I’m glad you believe baptism is salvific. Perhaps I should’ve used the example of not believing in Peter as the head of The Church. Bottom line, you can ‘prove’ all you believe only to yourself. Not to me. This is my original point. I think you thought I meant you can’t prove it to yourself, which of course, you can do. It still doesn’t make it true though, simply because you believe it to be. Your examples of cover-up don’t sound to me like it should be a reason to have complete contempt and disregard for the Catholic Church.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

wow, josie, if God says NO ONE will be lost then NO ONE will be lost, do i have to put the Scripture out here again?

thank you for the prayers

God bless you

 

[Jerry_Marino]

I didn’t ask you if it saves or not. I asked you, why does the Bible say it does.

Check this out? As if this is something novel to me? I know this Jerry. I just wonder why you think it should be done outside of the light of the Church to which the Holy Spirit was given for this purpose.

we are talking about interpretation of the Bible and without the Holy Spirit

 

[MrS]

wow, josie, if God says NO ONE will be lost then NO ONE will be lost, do i have to put the Scripture out here again?

thank you for the prayers

God bless you

Then for sure I epect to see Judas in Heaven.

.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Then for sure I epect to see Judas in Heaven.

.

AND Hitler, Stahlin, etc…along side of Mother Teresa…

 

[Jerry_Marino]

were they saved?

did they repent?

i don’t know, do you?

 

[christian1]

To Steve GC part 1

You said:
They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.”

They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children.

Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”?

**I understand that the mention of firstborn does not necessarily dictate there were more children, therefore it is not in my arguement. **

you said: But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

The word used is 'unto’ not until and the hebrew word is different from the Greek that we are looking at and obviously means up until as the definition makes clear.

you said:There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

Again, the word used is 'unto’ not ‘til’ or 'until’

**Furthermore, for the writer to say that no one knew unto this present day did not mean our present day, but theirs. Therefore, it would be correct to say it this way. **

**you said:**The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25.

This is most incorrect. For I will use your logic to prove so. You said that a modern interpretation of ‘until’ cannot be put upon to mean that **something happened after a certain time without creating rediculous results. ** Let us therefore use both your meaning and the modern meaning for the scriptures using the same greek ‘until’ in the scripture in question.

you said: In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later,

Mat 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

**How would your interpretation work here? Does the word imply something didn’t happen up to a certain point? Or does it imply that something did happen up to a certain point. In fact it clearly implies that Joseph went to Egypt and stayed there ‘until’ a certain time and after that, he did something else. This is the sort of interpretation that should be used in: “Joseph did not know her until she gave birth…” That clearly implies that he had no sexual relations with her until a certain point in time. To pretend otherwise seems to be a deliberate display of ignorance.

And what of your interpretation here: **

Mat 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Again, your interpretation does not work here but the modern.

Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Again your interpretation is incorrect. The interpretation that you called modern should be applied.

Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Again the same is true.

Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Again, the same is true.

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,

Again the same is true.

Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Again the same is true

 

[christian1]

To Steve GC part 2

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

**Again the same is true. Especially to show that something will be done at a certain time and that time is when He drinks it new in His Father’s kingdom.

Just as with Joseph. Who did not have sexual relations with Mary, until a certain time and that time was after she bore her son.**

Mat 27:64 Command therefore that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

Again the modern interpretation.

• Mat 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. *

**Now, the final word ‘until’ in Mat. 28:15 here means up to this day and is not the same as those above.

mekh’-ree, mekh-ris’
From G3372; as far as, that is, up to a certain point (as preposition of extent [denoting the terminus, whereas G891 refers especially to the space of time or place intervening] or conjugation): - till, (un-) to, until.**

you said: Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

Even with your recent translation of before she bore a son does not denote that he did not have relations with her after.

What do you think?

 

[MrS]

were they saved?

did they repent?

i don’t know, do you?

Sure you know…

isn’t that why you said:

“…if God says NO ONE will be lost then NO ONE will be lost, do i have to put the Scripture out here again?..”