Things We Believe That Aren't In The Bible

[pismopal]

Anyone here who thinks that the Bible is telling us that EVERYONE but Christ is a sinner…please google the word "hyperbole’. Hyperbole is rife in the OT and NT and this is why personal interpretation is sometimes difficult if not dangerous.

 

[inkaneer]

You will find all of what we know as the Trinity in the scriptures common to all christians.

I am sorry but that is not true. Our understanding of the Trinity comes not from the scriptures but from Greek philosophy. Nowhere in scripture do you find the concepts of essence, nature, or person. These are all Greek philosophical concepts. Yet this is exactly how the Trinity is understood by Trinitarian Christians. Those who do not accept this understanding see God as being just one God with different ‘manifestations’.

 

[inkaneer]

Well I’m one of “them”. I won’t stoop to inuendo. Christ was born without sin so that He could make the perfect atonement for our sins. Only the Saviour could do such a thing. No where in the bible are we told, nor are we led to believe that Mary was also born without sin or without the stain of sin. Nor are we told that she remained sinless throughout her life. Likewise the bible doesn’t mention her assumption. All of this can be attributed to supposition. Having said all of this, there is no reason to revere Mary in any type of way, such as prayers and supplications to her. Granted, Mary was a very special young woman chosen to do a great job. She was the most blessed woman I can think of. Yet God’s Word does not instruct us to venerate her in any way. Since the bible clearly states that “no man can come to the Father execpt by the Son” we can know that Mary, the saints, etc. are not going to get our prayers to God for us. Only Christ can do this. This is why we pray to God in the name of Jesus. The bible does not instruct us to pray to Mary or to saint Joseph for anything. Many Christians may feel a kinship with certain biblical characters, such as the Apostle Paul. I feel like Paul did when he said that “the things he wanted to do he did not and those things he did not want to do he did”."

And you would be very wrong in believing as you do. Your first mistake is your beliefs are based on sola scriptura. Sola scriptura was non existant in the early church for the first 1500 years then it comes on the scene via Martin Luther. It is, in the words of scripture, a tradition of man. Name me one person in the first millenium of christianity that preached the sola scriptura doctrine. There are none. Secondly Jesus established a church with authority as a spiritual kingdom. Plenty of passages in the NT are evidenced of that. But read Isaiah 22:22 regarding the chief steward of the Davidic kingdom then read Mt 16:18-19. The Davidic kings had 12 stewards and one of them was selected as the chief steward and was given the keys to the king’s house. He ruled in the king’s absence and had the authority of the king. He could shut and no one could open or he could open and no one could lock. Jesus the last Davidic king has twelve Apostles and one of them, Simon, is made chief steward and given the keys to Heaven. He has the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven.

Regarding Mary we have the constant teaching of the church along with Biblical clues and insights that tell us that Mary was not just an ordinary human being just as Adam and Eve were not like ordinary human beings. For instance we read the Angel Gabriel’s address to her in Luke 1:28:

"And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!’” [Luke 1:28]

I know the protestants want to change 'full of grace" to ‘highly favored one’ but the correct translation of the Greek word “kecharitomene”. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” But notice the angel does not address Mary by name but by a quality she possesses. That quality is grace. Here is a question for you and for all protestants. How can a person be “filled with grace” before the age of grace began? Protestantism has no answer. Catholics do and it is the answer that the early church taught. The early church saw Christ as the second Adam and Mary as the second Eve. Both Adam and Eve were created sinless. So too Jesus and Mary. Again it seems to me that Protestants are hypocrits. I say that because Protestants will readily admit that they are sinners yet they believe that if they pray to God he will hear and grant their petitions. Among the scripture passages they cite for this is Mt 7:8-11

“8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” [Mt 7:8-11]

So how does that make protestants hypocrits you ask? Easy, protestants believe God will give them, sinners that they are, what they ask but God will not give to His only begotten Son a mother worthy of Him. In other words protestants expect to receive bread or a fish but Jesus gets the stone or the serpent. That is why they are hypocrits. And I remind them that Jesus’s atonement for sin was done on the cross not in the womb.

As for prayers to the saints all one need to do is look at the Book of revelation and ask where did the elders get the prayers of the saints that they offer to God? Same with the prayers that the angel offers to God in Rev 8:4. If all prayer is to be to God alone how did they obtain these prayers? Did they steal them? I don’t think that is possible in heaven, do you?

 

[inkaneer]

In order for Mary to be “sinless” we’d have to assume she was perfect. But only Christ was and is perfect. This is precisely why He was the perfect blood atonement for the sins of the world.

Adam and Eve were created perfect. The early church saw Jesus and Mary as the second Adam and the second Eve.

Whether anyone agrees with me is not important. I’m not here to argue a point, rather to show that this is what most “protestants” believe. I don’t actually consider myself a protestant as I’m not protesting anything. I’m here also to say that in all the years I’ve been reading the bible and studying God’s Word I’ve never read any scripture that would even lead me to believe that Mary was sinless, was assumed into heaven or should be offered prayers to her son.

I’ve spoken to many Catholics on this subject and their belief (the one’s I spoke with) is that Catholic scholars and leaders down through history have declared that Mary was sinless and was assumed into heaven based on the belief that only a perfect and sinless woman would have been allowed to carry and give birth to the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind. Again this is supposition on their part. If God did not clearly instruct us to venerate Mary and to seek her guidance in dealing with Jesus why make that jump? We know from history that Mary was a simple girl from a simple family. If Mary were born sinless wouldn’t it stand to reason that her mother also would have to have been born sinless? And if that were so wouldn’t her grandmother also have been born sinless? The entire lineage would have had to come from a sinless parentage in order for this to work. I see no reason what-so-ever to place something special on Mary that God did not tell us to. Mary was special in that God chose her. My focus is and will remain on Christ. As for Mary, I don’t know what actually happened to her. Whether or not her life ended in death or whether she was assumed into heaven is of no consequence. She was an obedient woman who did what God called her to do. There has never before nor since been a woman who was called to such a great thing as bringing the Son of God into the world. Did that make Mary a special woman? Yes, by all means. Does she deserve our veneration, our worship? No. Only God through His Son deserves our veneration and worship. Mary deserves all the respect we can give to her.

No it is not supposition it is the teaching of the authoritative church. That teaching cannot be in error. Jesus said His church would prevail against the forces of hell. His church was also to teach the nations the gospel. If the church taught error then hell would have prevailed. That makes Jesus a liar and therefore your scriptures are in error.
You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Frankk]

I am sorry but that is not true. Our understanding of the Trinity comes not from the scriptures but from Greek philosophy. Nowhere in scripture do you find the concepts of essence, nature, or person. These are all Greek philosophical concepts. Yet this is exactly how the Trinity is understood by Trinitarian Christians. Those who do not accept this understanding see God as being just one God with different ‘manifestations’.

Apology is unnecessary. Your understanding is flawed. In fact, it is a heresy that was dealt with by the Early Fathers. The ‘understanding’ may not be explained in Scripture but the reality is. The first example is in 2 Cor 13:13 ‘…the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit’ be with the people of Corinth

The idea of equality of Jesus with God is found in Jn 10:30. There are, of course, other places in scripture where we see the Trinity [although it’s not explicitly named as such]

In the early years of the Church a number of heresies arose which needed clarification - which task was undertaken by the Fathers. It is their work which clarified [for example] the 3 substances of Arius and Sabellius’ one person.

The problems associated with ‘hypostasis’, ‘hypoousios’ and the Latin substantia are explained far better than any of us could attempt in Augustine’s great work ‘On the Trinity’

 

[inkaneer]

Apology is unnecessary. Your understanding is flawed. In fact, it is a heresy that was dealt with by the Early Fathers. The ‘understanding’ may not be explained in Scripture but the reality is. The first example is in 2 Cor 13:13 ‘…the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit’ be with the people of Corinth

The idea of equality of Jesus with God is found in Jn 10:30. There are, of course, other places in scripture where we see the Trinity [although it’s not explicitly named as such]

In the early years of the Church a number of heresies arose which needed clarification - which task was undertaken by the Fathers. It is their work which clarified [for example] the 3 substances of Arius and Sabellius’ one person.

The problems associated with ‘hypostasis’, ‘hypoousios’ and the Latin substantia are explained far better than any of us could attempt in Augustine’s great work ‘On the Trinity’

I’m sorry but if the trinity could be explained by scripture verses then I imagine that the early church would have done exactly that. But the scripture only gives hints at the Trinity. Hints that can be interpreted wrongly as the Jesus only or Unitarians prove all too well. It was the church that defined the Trinity and the church did so using philosophical concepts not found in the scriptures. You will note that the person to whom I responded maintained that the Trinity is explicit in the scriptures. It is not. Every trinitarian protestant understands the Trinity exactly as the Catholic Church defined it.

 

[PJM]

=inkaneer;6246762]And you would be very wrong in believing as you do. Your first mistake is your beliefs are based on sola scriptura. Sola scriptura was non existant in the early church for the first 1500 years then it comes on the scene via Martin Luther. It is, in the words of scripture, a tradition of man. Name me one person in the first millenium of christianity that preached the sola scriptura doctrine. There are none. Secondly Jesus established a church with authority as a spiritual kingdom. Plenty of passages in the NT are evidenced of that. But read Isaiah 22:22 regarding the chief steward of the Davidic kingdom then read Mt 16:18-19. The Davidic kings had 12 stewards and one of them was selected as the chief steward and was given the keys to the king’s house. He ruled in the king’s absence and had the authority of the king. He could shut and no one could open or he could open and no one could lock. Jesus the last Davidic king has twelve Apostles and one of them, Simon, is made chief steward and given the keys to Heaven. He has the power to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven.

Regarding Mary we have the constant teaching of the church along with Biblical clues and insights that tell us that Mary was not just an ordinary human being just as Adam and Eve were not like ordinary human beings. For instance we read the Angel Gabriel’s address to her in Luke 1:28:

"And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!’” [Luke 1:28]

I know the protestants want to change 'full of grace" to ‘highly favored one’ but the correct translation of the Greek word “kecharitomene”. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” But notice the angel does not address Mary by name but by a quality she possesses. That quality is grace. Here is a question for you and for all protestants. How can a person be “filled with grace” before the age of grace began? Protestantism has no answer. Catholics do and it is the answer that the early church taught. The early church saw Christ as the second Adam and Mary as the second Eve. Both Adam and Eve were created sinless. So too Jesus and Mary. Again it seems to me that Protestants are hypocrits. I say that because Protestants will readily admit that they are sinners yet they believe that if they pray to God he will hear and grant their petitions. Among the scripture passages they cite for this is Mt 7:8-11

“8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” [Mt 7:8-11]

So how does that make protestants hypocrits you ask? Easy, protestants believe God will give them, sinners that they are, what they ask but God will not give to His only begotten Son a mother worthy of Him. In other words protestants expect to receive bread or a fish but Jesus gets the stone or the serpent. That is why they are hypocrits. And I remind them that Jesus’s atonement for sin was done on the cross not in the womb.

As for prayers to the saints all one need to do is look at the Book of revelation and ask where did the elders get the prayers of the saints that they offer to God? Same with the prayers that the angel offers to God in Rev 8:4. If all prayer is to be to God alone how did they obtain these prayers? Did they steal them? I don’t think that is possible in heaven, do you?

EXCELLENT RESPONSE! Thanks!

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Bellus

Well I’m one of “them”. I won’t stoop to inuendo. Christ was born without sin so that He could make the perfect atonement for our sins. Only the Saviour could do such a thing. No where in the bible are we told, nor are we led to believe that Mary was also born without sin or without the stain of sin. Nor are we told that she remained sinless throughout her life. Likewise the bible doesn’t mention her assumption. All of this can be attributed to supposition. Having said all of this, there is no reason to revere Mary in any type of way, such as prayers and supplications to her. Granted, Mary was a very special young woman chosen to do a great job. She was the most blessed woman I can think of. Yet God’s Word does not instruct us to venerate her in any way. Since the bible clearly states that “no man can come to the Father execpt by the Son” we can know that Mary, the saints, etc. are not going to get our prayers to God for us. Only Christ can do this. This is why we pray to God in the name of Jesus. The bible does not instruct us to pray to Mary or to saint Joseph for anything. Many Christians may feel a kinship with certain biblical characters, such as the Apostle Paul. I feel like Paul did when he said that “the things he wanted to do he did not and those things he did not want to do he did”."

Am I to understand from yor position that you understand Mary to have been a sinner, not perfected, and therefore The Christ issued forth form a sinful human person I that what your saying?

Have you ever read Exodus chpts. 26-28 on what Yahweh DEMANGEDfor the Ark of His Presence; NOT His Son, just a reminder of God? If Gad was this particular about His “PURE GOLD” Ark, would He ascept something less than perfectly PURE and sinless for the ark for his Son?

Your understanding [lack there of] is amazing. This is the Mother of GOD, the God who Created you. [Luke 1:26-36.]

Is God not capable of PERFECTING Mary, or might He see His Ark of the Covenant as more important than the Tabernacle of His Son?

Because you can’t “see it,” does not make it untrue.

Love and prayers friend.

 

[coosa]

Whats up brother! With all due respect, your comments are not worth debating. You’ll ignore everything and continue to throw a passage or two over and over again proving nothing but yourself. Can someone please refute my previous post.

In response to the comments earlier about us all being one body, disagreeing, but what matters most is that we’re united in Christ is utter nonsense. This is the old we’re united in spirit with Christ but our flesh is bad so regardless if we disagree, we’re still one family.

Listen, protestantism was formed to make man feel secure without having to participate in anything Christ calls us to do, grace given of course, we are too selfish to take up the cross on our own. Man is lazy, selfish, prideful, hateful, judgemental and so on(I’m all of these by the way) so he needs to create a Gospel for himself to wipe away guilt, insecurities, so he can continue to live out his selfish/lazy life.

If you continue to pick and choose a passage here and there to absolutely prove nothing, you’re not believing in the Gospel but yourself.

Protestantism splits and breaks us into many parts. How many churches have to be built before you admit this? I find it funny when preachers like Rick Warren talk about unity, it’s a joke.

I remember growing up Catholic as a child and my family literally tore apart because of this. My whole family was Catholic and this self proclaimed preacher came into our home and started this single passage nonsense and split us up. It got so bad that alot of them stopped hanging out and talking to one another. The preacher himself stopped talking to us out of the Church once we refuted some of his teachings. Before you know it, we’re all in seperate churches, and everyone has the truth! No offense to Jehovahs but man, these family members were the worst, any contact with them they’d send us to hell!

But hey, we’re all united in Christ right? We all believe everything in the Gospels right? Please…

One body(matter), One spirit all united in Christ!

And brothers, if your gonna respond by saying something like well, Jesus said not everyone will be saved when hearing the truth, please save it to argue amongst yourselves.

And all of this could have been prevented if the family would have learned their Faith, studied themselves, and not gave in to their itching ears.

Protestantism (Anglican excluded) was formed when the scriptures were revealed to the public in their own languages. God’s word was only allowed in one language that only a small minority could understand. This period lasted approximately from 300 AD. until the 1380’s. One church fought this with moderate success until the printing press shattered that church’s resistance. You owe at least a small bit of gratitude for those that died and risked their lives to make the word of God available to you. God Bless.

 

[coosa]

Pardon me. I meant to type 600 AD in my response.

 

[The_Reginator]

Now that we are talking about things that aren’t in the Bible, why does the majority believe that [all] angels have wings?

From greeting cards, silly!

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Protestantism (Anglican excluded) was formed when the scriptures were revealed to the public in their own languages.

revealed? own languages? Many of these languages were Latin based you realize that and are extremely similar to Latin.

God’s word was only allowed in one language that only a small minority could understand. This period lasted approximately from 300 AD. until the 1380’s.

not even accurate read the wiki page on German bible translations before Protestantism, there were hundreds, maybe not whole translations but it was certainly done before Luther. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Bible_translations

Notice it says one of the oldest ones is from the 4th century, the very century you mention. In 300 I think most Catholic Churches even in the West still said Mass in Greek and Latin may have barely been introduced. And Latin was the spoken language, according to wiki til 1296 Latin was the official language of Portugal. There are even manuscripts of the bible in English before the Reformation

One church fought this with moderate success until the printing press shattered that church’s resistance.

The first book published on the printing press was a Vulgate, you realize that don’t you?

You owe at least a small bit of gratitude for those that died and risked their lives to make the word of God available to you. God Bless.

People were executed for not translating the bible, but doing so BAD, Protestants ignore that part, as far as local bishops and even kings like Henry VIII even after inventing Anglicanism were concerned some of the bible translations into vernacular were awful and deserved to be burned I owe no bit of gratitude to them. The only person, beside God, that I owe gratitude to for having the bible available is Johannes Gutenberg for the printing press, that not Protestantism or bad translators made the bible widely available

Protestantism was not created by the Bible being made widely available, but by misinterpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, or in a few cases complete disregard for them.

If the Church was interesting in laymen not knowing the bible she would have not had St Jerome and others translate it into Latin, but rather leave it in Greek (which even then is similar to Latin)

 

[mmmcounts]

Protestantism was not created by the Bible being made widely available, but by misinterpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, or in a few cases complete disregard for them.

I’m glad you brought this up. I’m going to ask you to do one of two things.

Option one: Please tell me what method of interpretation Catholics use and why the Historical-Grammatical method (used by Protestants) is so wrong and yours is so right.

Option two: Come right out and admit to a kind of genetic fallacy, in that this isn’t at all about how the Bible is interpreted, but who it is interpreted by.

These are the only two options I can suggest. You’ve stated that Protestants misinterpret Scripture. This could have something to do with what we are doing, and if so, I’d be interested in how you’d describe that- and if it’s extremely inaccurate, I have a rather lengthy description of my own.

Or it could have something to do with who we are (as if we can change that ).

 

[mo3]

God’s word was only allowed in one language that only a small minority could understand. This period lasted approximately from 300 AD. until the 1380’s. One church fought this with moderate success until the printing press shattered that church’s resistance. You owe at least a small bit of gratitude for those that died and risked their lives to make the word of God available to you. God Bless.

This opinion has “no” historical perspective about the preservation of the written word. The conclusions you make are not base upon historically true facts and therefore are not accurate. Yes the printing press shattered many things but not what you claim. Please read the “First” Bible ever printed, it is the Guttenburg Bible and it had 73 books!

The Church “never resisted the printing of an accurate translation” of the Bible. After the printing press, there were many Bibles which had blatantly false translations’ that even Martin Luther agreed were false. The Church could not allow these false translations to dilute the true Gospel.

Please give me the name of one of these falsely translated Bibles that is still in print?

Please look at the first Bible Martin Luther translated, the German Bible. It had 73 books!

You owe and “enormous” gratitude to the Catholic Church and for the Catholics who risked their lives “preserving” the written word “before” the printing press. Even Martin Luther agreed with this point.

Before the printing press, Catholic monks spent at least 1 year of their life to make 1 copy of the Holy Bible. Bibles had to be chained to the pulpit to keep thieves from stealing them.

God bless.

 

[twb1621]

).

Hello MMM…

Option one: Please tell me what method of interpretation Catholics use and why the Historical-Grammatical method (used by Protestants) is so wrong and yours is so right.

Option two: Come right out and admit to a kind of genetic fallacy, in that this isn’t at all about how the Bible is interpreted, but who it is interpreted by.

With all due respect, a response to both of your options.

Christ made a commitment to His bride, His Church that she would never fail, that she would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that He would never abandon her. These things are scriptural. He also urged us to persevere. This is scriptural.

Now in regard to interpretation, Jesus established His Church and did this solely through His Apostles. The Apostles continued the growth and establishment of the Church by His direction through the assignment of their successors and formation of the hierarchy, the very same Faith which came to be know as “Christian” in Antioch and a short time later was recognized as the “Catholic or universal Church” of which remained its identity.

The ECFs, the successors to the apostles, some who personally received their teachings from the apostles and then through their own successors attest in their writings the teachings of the faith both what was written and to many of the apostolic traditions of the faith . Further, the ECFs and their successors also were responsible for the recognition and selection of writings from among many as the Inspired Word of God, the compilation of those writings, the teachings and interpretations of those writings and the closure of canon of what we refer to as the Bible, of which all this was ordered to be done by the Catholic Church through pope Damasus.

The Bible was introduced by the Catholic Church for the teachings of the Catholic Faith as it was taught with the accompaniment of Sacred Tradition and as taught by the Apostles and to them by Christ. These same ECFs attest to the failure of individual interpretation as does scripture without the guidance of the Church.

Now, to call into question the validity of the ECFs or their successors continued guidance by the Holy Spirit is self defeating to Christianity itself. It then raises question to the validity of scripture as the Inspired Word of God as well as the continued commitment He made to His Church.

Every Bible including yours possesses most of the contents of the Catholic Bible from the Septuagint and Vetus Itala to the Latin Vulgate forward, as closed through canonization by the Catholic Church, yet the interpretations of scripture by non-Catholic Christian faiths have been so vast that the many in existence today proves individual interpretation is a road to failure. The fact that individual interpretation has lead to many distorted beliefs is also proven by the fact that many of these interpretations conflict with other teachings of scripture, of which non-Catholics can not explain why. Follow the lineage of the interpretations you follow and follow the lineage of the interpretations of the Catholic Church and I promise you many of your interpretations will end in a relatively short period of time. The Bible was taken from its own element and used to establish altered beliefs and to eliminate teachings that some could not accept in faith.
If you would like the breakdown on how proper interpretation is performed or some of the modern day professors and scholars names, many of whom have served on committees in there specialized fields of relevant study, I will be glad to provide that for you. Their determinations have coincided with the interpretations that fullfill the lineage of Scripture. I should also mention that many of these scholars after receiving the fullness of their educations have converted from many other faiths to Catholicism and many were preachers and teachers, pastors, ministers, reverends, bishops and what have you in various protestant generated faiths. That catagory of conversion is incomparable to the opposite.

The genetic fallacy is in the assumption modern man (over the last 500 years through today) can better know the teachings of Christ over and above the origin and lineage of those teachings.

 

[PJM]

=Cristian B;6246014]Please start with Ecclesiastes 7:21

[BIBLEDRB]Ecclesiastes 7:21[/BIBLEDRB]

Lets also look at a few other translations:

The KJB
21. Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee:

The RSV
21. Do not give heed to all the things that men say, lest you hear your servant cursing you;

The DRB

1. But do not apply thy heart to all words that are spoken: lest perhaps thou hear thy servant reviling thee.
   **
   The New American **

21 Also, do not take seriously all words which are spoken, so that you will not hear your servant cursing you.

***There are often mutiple meanings.

1. Your more likely to find trouble when you seek it.
2. Not everything [every spoken word or instruction] is ment for OUR ears.
3. The part about the “servant cursing” refers to a workers tendacy to often complain about the work, boss, and or working conditions. may or may not be fact, often is conjecture and subjective personal opinion. Leting off “steam.”

The “boss” here is advised not to take these type complaints to heart, as they are “just letting off steam.”***

 

[Pawel_J]

Well I’m one of “them”. (…) I see no reason what-so-ever to place something special on Mary that God did not tell us to. Mary was special in that God chose her. My focus is and will remain on Christ. As for Mary, I don’t know what actually happened to her. Whether or not her life ended in death or whether she was assumed into heaven is of no consequence. She was an obedient woman who did what God called her to do. There has never before nor since been a woman who was called to such a great thing as bringing the Son of God into the world. Did that make Mary a special woman? Yes, by all means. Does she deserve our veneration, our worship? No. Only God through His Son deserves our veneration and worship. Mary deserves all the respect we can give to her.

I am not Protestant, but I entirely agree with your point of view.

 

[Frankk]

You will note that the person to whom I responded maintained that the Trinity is explicit in the scriptures. It is not.

Nor did I suggest it was.

 

[Pawel_J]

jericho777;6243909:

In Hebrew all names have meanings Jesus means the LORD is Salvation. Miryam is Hebrew and means rebel. It’s no big deal.

One explanation of the name Mary, based on its derivation from the Egyptian mer or mar, to love, and the Hebrew Divine name Yam or Yahweh (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 1906, pp. 356 sqq.). Thus explained the name denotes “one loving Yahweh” or “one beloved by Yahweh”. We have already pointed out the difficulty implied in an Egyptian origin of the name Mary. Probably it is safer to adhere to Bardenhewer’s conclusions (l. c., pp. 154 sq.): Mariam and Maria are the later forms of the Hebrew miryam; miryam is not a compound word consisting of two nouns, or a noun and an adjective, or a noun and a pronominal suffix, but it is a simple though derivative noun; the noun is not formed by means of a prefix (m), but by the addition of a suffix (am). Presupposing these principles, the name miryam may be derived either from marah, to be rebellious, or from mara, to be well nourished. Etymology does not decide which of these derivations is to be preferred; but it is hardly probable that the name of a young girl should be connected with the idea of rebellion, while Orientals consider the idea of being well nourished as synonymous with beauty and bodily perfection, so that they would be apt to give their daughters a name derived from mara Mary means therefore The beautiful or The perfect one.

There are complex meanings of the name Mary, don’t assume something to prove nothing. And yes, it is a big deal.

We should not forget the Hebrew name Miryam (=Mary, Maria) was one of the most common female names at that time. We have several Marys among followers of Jesus (for example Mary Magdalene = Miryam of Magdala).
The name Jesus (Hebrew → Yeshuah or Yehoshuah) was also pretty frequently used, not so often as Miryam, but it was not a rare name.

 

[mo3]

Whether anyone agrees with me is not important. I’m not here to argue a point, rather to show that this is what most “protestants” believe. I don’t actually consider myself a protestant as I’m not protesting anything. I’m here also to say that in all the years I’ve been reading the bible and studying God’s Word I’ve never read any scripture that would even lead me to believe that Mary was sinless, was assumed into heaven or should be offered prayers to her son.

Please quote the chapter and verst that says: All important theological concepts are listed in the Bible?

Please quote the chapter and verse that says: Your Bible is the true translation of the written word of God?

One needs to approach the Bible from the standpoint it was intended. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the “Bible” is the final authority.

You are trusting human beings that assert these things. St. Paul says: Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. Rom 10:17.

Who are you “hearing” these things from?

God bless.