Things We Believe That Aren't In The Bible

[chuey55]

Perpetual Virginity Part 4

So, it seems that Jesus does reign forever, even though Scripture says He will reign “until” all of His enemies have been defeated. Which means the word “until” does not absolutely denote a change of condition. One more example that proves this is from Acts 8:40. In Acts 8:40, it tells us that Philip preached the gospels all over the place “until” he came to Caesarea. So that means he stopped preaching the gospel after getting to Caesarea, right? I don’t think so.

Does the word “until” ever signify a change of condition? Absolutely. In fact, that is the most common usage of the word. However, as I have clearly shown, it is also used to simply show the way things are up to a certain point in time, without necessarily indicating a change of condition after that certain point in time.

So, Matthew 1:24–25 is simply letting you know that Jesus’ birth was a virgin birth. That Joseph had no relations with Mary before Jesus’ birth, thus fulfilling the prophecy of a virgin giving birth. There is no intent here to imply that Joseph did then have relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus.

God Bless

 

[Cristian_B]

This current dialogue reminds me of a famous saying by Scott Hahn:

"Proof text, out of context, is nothing more than a pre-text."

[BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:19-24[/BIBLEDRB]

The verse I was talking about is verse 21. According to Dictionary.com context means:

–noun

1. 
   *]the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
   *]the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
   *]Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
   
   It could be out of context only if at least one verse (verse 20 or 22, for example) would speak about the same topic. But it is not so in this case. I will quote again:
   
   [BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:20-22[/BIBLEDRB]
   
   As you see, it is not out of context. The following verse and neither the preceding verse speak about the same thing. Since it is not about the same topic, the following and preceding verses cannot influence the meaning of Ecclesiastes 7:21. I am sure that some of you have not even searched the Bible to see whether the context In Ecclesiastes chapter 7 can change the meaning of the passage. Therefore, since none of the following or preceding verses speak about the topic in Ecclesiastes 7:21, then the context, so to speak, does not alter the meaning of the passage.
   
   Note: in some Bibles, the verse from Ecclesiastes 7:21 is found in Ecclesiastes 7:20 instead

 

[chuey55]

[BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:19-24[/BIBLEDRB]

The verse I was talking about is verse 21. According to Dictionary.com context means:

–noun

1. 
   *]the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
   *]the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
   *]Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
   
   It could be out of context only if at least one verse (verse 20 or 22, for example) would speak about the same topic. But it is not so in this case. I will quote again:
   
   [BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:20-22[/BIBLEDRB]
   
   As you see, it is not out of context. The following verse and neither the preceding verse speak about the same thing. Since it is not about the same topic, the following and preceding verses cannot influence the meaning of Ecclesiastes 7:21. I am sure that some of you have not even searched the Bible to see whether the context In Ecclesiastes chapter 7 can change the meaning of the passage. Therefore, since none of the following or preceding verses speak about the topic in Ecclesiastes 7:21, then the context, so to speak, does not alter the meaning of the passage.
   
   Note: in some Bibles, the verse from Ecclesiastes 7:21 is found in Ecclesiastes 7:20 instead

1. 
   I’ll ask again Cristian B, So does this passage mean that a just man is incapable of doing good?
   
   Or are we to believe the first part only to prove your nonsense?
   
   “It could be out of context only if at least one verse (verse 20 or 22, for example) would speak about the same topic. But it is not so in this case. I will quote again:”
   
   Did you just make this up yourself?
   
   answer the questions Christian B, come on you can do it brother!

 

[mo3]

Only a sinner need a Savior.

How about a baby that dies after 3 days of life? How about the 50 million aborted babies since 1973? Please quote chapter and verse which says these humans have sinned.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

Your translation of Romans 5:12 is inaccurate. It should read:
Rom 5:`2 - Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned.

Please quote chapter and verse which says your translation is “more accurate” than the NAB Bible.

God bless.

 

[chuey55]

[BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:19-24[/BIBLEDRB]

The verse I was talking about is verse 21. According to Dictionary.com context means:

–noun

1. 
   *]the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
   *]the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
   *]Mycology. the fleshy fibrous body of the pileus in mushrooms.
   
   It could be out of context only if at least one verse (verse 20 or 22, for example) would speak about the same topic. But it is not so in this case. I will quote again:
   
   [BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:20-22[/BIBLEDRB]
   
   As you see, it is not out of context. The following verse and neither the preceding verse speak about the same thing. Since it is not about the same topic, the following and preceding verses cannot influence the meaning of Ecclesiastes 7:21. I am sure that some of you have not even searched the Bible to see whether the context In Ecclesiastes chapter 7 can change the meaning of the passage. Therefore, since none of the following or preceding verses speak about the topic in Ecclesiastes 7:21, then the context, so to speak, does not alter the meaning of the passage.
   
   Note: in some Bibles, the verse from Ecclesiastes 7:21 is found in Ecclesiastes 7:20 instead

1. 
   Stop dancing around the questions. Please stop wasting everyones time. Your holding on to one misinterpreted verse to prove nothing, try a different one, this ones getting old. Otherwise give it a rest brother.

 

[Cristian_B]

Sooo, since this passage you posted says “for there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good”-mean you are incapable of doing good.

You are making assumptions. I have not stated that.

I never said that one is incapable of doing good. You are taking it out of context: thing I did not do. The verse implies that people do good, but the same passage says that there is no person that did good and never sinned.

For there is no just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not.

This verse says that there is no human that does good and never sinned.

Or better yet, no man whom is just is capable of doing good. Man, I’m ready to break away from your church and start my own already, we can’t seem to agree on one single passage!

As I stated, you are making untrue assumptions. The verse says that the just man does good but it also says that there is no just man that does good and never sins.

 

[Cristian_B]

Stop dancing around the questions. Please stop wasting everyones time. Your holding on to one misinterpreted verse to prove nothing, try a different one, this ones getting old. Otherwise give it a rest brother.

You have never told me:

1. 
   *]How comes it is miss interpreted?
   *]What is the true meaning.
   
   You are actually the one who is wasting my tame making an unnecessary post. Instead of writing basically nothing, you could have explained to me what the passage means in your opinion.

 

[mo3]

The one and ONLY belief that matters is in Christ.

Please quote chapter and verse that says the “ONLY” belief that matters is in Christ.

That would mean we don’t have to love to be saved?
That would mean we don’t have to believe what the Bible says?

Believing is Christ is much more than an intellectual assent.

God bless.

 

[Cristian_B]

I’ll ask again Cristian B, So does this passage mean that a just man is incapable of doing good?

Or are we to believe the first part only to prove your nonsense?

“It could be out of context only if at least one verse (verse 20 or 22, for example) would speak about the same topic. But it is not so in this case. I will quote again:”

Did you just make this up yourself?

answer the questions Christian B, come on you can do it brother!

The same passage gives your response: For there is no just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not. It is written: “…that doth good”. It seems you have misinterpreted it. It says that just men do good, but that there is no just man that didn’t sin in his life, not that never did any good.

 

[mo3]

The same passage gives your response: For there is no just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not. It is written: “…that doth good”. It seems you have misinterpreted it. It says that just men do good, but that there is no just man that didn’t sin in his life, not that never did any good.

Please quote chapter and verse that says a 3 day old baby that dies has sinned?

God bless.

 

[edjco]

I think it all boils down to one question. Those who do not believe that the Blessed Virgin was without sin should answer this:

Someone who is with sin is impure.
Would God choose to enter the world through something (someone) who is impure?

 

[Frankk]

Mo and Jericho, to curtail any argument Rom 5:12 says:

Δια τουτο ὡσπερ δι ἑνος ἀνθρωπου ἡ ἁμαρτια εἰς τον κοσμον εἰσηλθεν, και δια της ἁμαρτιας ὁ θανατος, και ὁυτως εἱς παντας ἀνθρωπους ὁ θανατος διηλθεν, ἐφ᾽ ὠ παντες ἡμαpτον.

Would anyone disagree? If you really want to debate these issues you need to learn Koine Greek to be able to speak with any authority - but don’t think there won’t be arguments even then!?

 

[Cristian_B]

I think it all boils down to one question. Those who do not believe that the Blessed Virgin was without sin should answer this:

Someone who is with sin is impure.
Would God choose to enter the world through something (someone) who is impure?

Actually Jesus entered an impure world. If you say that He can’t be with the impure, then you are saying that He cannot be in the world, because the world is sin, and sin is even more than impure. But Jesus hid His glory for us so we will not die because of it. Therefore, he incarnated an impure body, leaving His power behind for a while, so we might be saved. He entered an impure body, that means vulnerable to sin. We are still impure physically. There will be a time when we will receive pure bodies. So if He could enter a mortal body, I believe He could as well enter the world trough a normal woman. He after all entered an impure world. Why couldn’t He enter trough an impure woman? He even spent years with sinners. Weren’t they unclean? They were, but still. It is also written that He is our Brother because He experienced all we experience. Therefore, if we have been born from a woman that has sinned, why wouldn’t He as well? It would be unjust for Him to have a special mum, while we have one that sinned. So He had one that sinned as well, because He is our Brother, meanings that He shared what we could pass trough.

 

[Frankk]

Actually Jesus entered an impure world. If you say that He can’t be with the impure, then you are saying that He cannot be in the world, because the world is sin, and sin is even more than impure. But Jesus hid His glory for us so we will not die because of it. Therefore, he incarnated an impure body, leaving His power behind for a while, so we might be saved. He entered an impure body, that means vulnerable to sin. We are still impure physically. There will be a time when we will receive pure bodies. So if He could enter a mortal body, I believe He could as well enter the world trough a normal woman. He after all entered an impure world. Why couldn’t He enter trough an impure woman? He even spent years with sinners. Weren’t they unclean? They were, but still. It is also written that He is our Brother because He experienced all we experience. Therefore, if we have been born from a woman that has sinned, why wouldn’t He as well? It would be unjust for Him to have a special mum, while we have one that sinned. So He had one that sinned as well, because He is our Brother, meanings that He shared what we could pass trough.

The essence of this is that you are saying Jesus himself sinned. (He is our Brother because He experienced all we experience.)

No true Christian could believe such a thing.

 

[Cristian_B]

Please quote chapter and verse that says a 3 day old baby that dies has sinned?

God bless.

Can a baby think? I don’t believe so. In order to be just you must learn to rationalize, speak, therefore think. He does not even know how to talk! How will He talk in His mind? By imagining images? That is what animals do. A baby isn’t just. You become just. You aren’t born just. In order to become something, you must learn to think first. A baby doesn’t rationalize like us. At first he is reacting according to his instincts. The passage speaks about just, righteous men. I believe that in order to be just, you must learn to think first. I was not even talking about babies. Babies have no sin when they are born.

 

[Cristian_B]

The essence of this is that you are saying Jesus himself sinned. (He is our Brother because He experienced all we experience.)

No true Christian could believe such a thing.

He didn’t sin but He felt the agony and punishment of sin. He didn’t feel the supposed pleasure of sin, but He felt its consequences. And also temptation, joy, love, etc. By experiencing all we experience I was thinking at emotions and certain situations.

 

[ATL_Granny]

Maybe not but this is where Catholics must accurately state where their beliefs come from and whether or not it is a required dogmatic teaching.

This is a good example. Catholics are not required to believe Veronica wiped the face of Jesus. This is not a dogmatic teaching. It is OK to believe it but there is nothing wrong with rejecting it either.

God bless.

Good morning, Mo:

My initial impression of this thread was more light-hearted in nature. I thought the OP was looking to show that there are many things both Catholics and non-Catholics believe that are not in the Bible. (Whether they’re dogmatic teachings or not didn’t seem to be a requirement.)

I had envisioned the thread as more of a listing of those things, not an apologetics dialogue. What has happened is that it’s gone much more towards apologetics, which is fine. I’ve been sitting back and reading.

 

[chuey55]

He didn’t sin but He felt the agony and punishment of sin. He didn’t feel the supposed pleasure of sin, but He felt its consequences. And also temptation, joy, love, etc. By experiencing all we experience I was thinking at emotions and certain situations.

Christian B, you’re not worth debating brother. You destroy you’re own arguments with your faulty logic. Have a good one brother-grace be with you.

 

[PJM]

=Cristian B;6245735]You have never told me:

1. 
   *]How comes it is miss interpreted?
   *]What is the true meaning.

1. 
   

   You are actually the one who is wasting my tame making an unnecessary post. Instead of writing basically nothing, you could have explained to me what the passage means in your opinion.

   ***The WORLD WIDE reason for Bible misunderstanding lies squarly on the grounds that inncorrect understanding [always and everytime] do NOT allign with CC teaching.
   
   The Bible "was birthed by the CC, and was wriiten specificaly for the CC when it was the ONLY Cristian Church in existence.
   
   To assume that anyone can gain a proper understanding and NOT teach in absolute conformity with the CC is simple folly.
   
   Friend, if you’ll share the verse in question, I will specificaly explain them for you.***
   
   **Eph. 2:19 **"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
   
   Love and prayers,
   
   Pat

 

[Cristian_B]

***The WORLD WIDE reason for Bible misunderstanding lies squarly on the grounds that inncorrect understanding [always and everytime] do NOT allign with CC teaching.

The Bible "was birthed by the CC, and was wriiten specificaly for the CC when it was the ONLY Cristian Church in existence.

To assume that anyone can gain a proper understanding and NOT teach in absolute conformity with the CC is simple folly.

Friend, if you’ll share the verse in question, I will specificaly explain them for you.***

**Eph. 2:19 **"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Love and prayers,

Pat

Please start with Ecclesiastes 7:21

[BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:21[/BIBLEDRB]