OMG!
Posted on 08/16/2023 6:39:10 AM PDT by zucchini bob
(2 Peter 1:20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (Isaiah 28:10) For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: (Isaiah 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Roman Catholic apologists admit this.
If one believes the Protoevangelium as a legitimate source one will have to believe this as well as recorded in the book.
"And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because mine eyes have seen strange things -- because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth -- a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire."
Contrast with how Luke, who did a thorough investigation records His birth.
6While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Luke, nor anywhere else in Scripture, records the events of the Protoevangelium.
The Protoevangelium was condemned and considered spurious by various writers that Rome loves to rely upon.
For the Roman Catholic he/she has to believe their church which has employed discredited and uninspired texts over inspired Scripture to support a belief that stands in contradiction of Scripture.
yes.
Speaking of cousins, just what was Elizabeth’s relationship to Mary?
Cousin?
Relative??
Kinswoman???
https://biblehub.com/luke/1-36.htm
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
That is a false appeal to Islam instead of to the one holy catholic and apostolic Church which He built on the apostles and prophets. It comes down to whether one believes what Jesus prophesied that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church.
Note in my post I said, and this is key...."doesn't make it right."
What Roman Catholicism believes about Mary...akin to the errors of Islam, as both are not grounded in Scripture.
Now, the Roman Catholic may say you cannot show where Joseph and Mary had sex.
I can't show you what Joseph and Mary did in the vast bulk of their days. I don't know what their favorite meal was.But we don't have to know as this was not recorded in scripture. It'd be nice to know but it's not needed to know.
The Roman Catholic has to reject clear uses of the word brother meaning...a brother...to justify their position on if Mary and Joseph had children on their own. And if they did it would not have been a sin. There were no injunctions against the two from having sex. In fact, it was expected they would.
For us to believe Rome is correct on this we have to believe Paul erred when he said he saw James, the Lord's brother.
I don't believe Paul was in error. But that's what Rome would have to say if they were honest on this topic.
You highlighted the key words.....whole church.
—> It was not rejected because it was false, it was rejected because it was not the inspired Word of God.
It was altered. Simple as that.
—> and contains the beliefs of the early Church.
No. It contains the teachings of the later Roman, as heresy was added. These were written into the document.
—> Non canonical writings still reveal what the early Church believed.
You will find no verifiable documents from before 100ad, while apostles were living, that teach most of Rome’s added doctrines.
Not in christian works
Not in secular
Not in Christian art
Not in secular
You won’t see a record of apostles teaching it
Nor commanding it
Nor practicing it.
"You should treat apostles and prophets as the Gospel commands. Receive every apostle that comes to you as you would the Lord. But he must not stay more than one day, or two if necessary: but if he stays three days, he is a false prophet." Didache
11And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Acts 18:11 NASB 95
If the Didache is true then Paul was to be seen as a false prophet.
Just one more reason why every belief needs to be filtered through Scripture to determine if it's accurate or false.
When/if this is done, much of Roman Catholicism begins to fall by the wayside.
Did Joseph die or something?
Did He and Mary split up?
Can’t see the reason for that.
I guess that’s the “Let the dead bury the dead”
Did not even rate a mention.
Where are these mentioned in LDS scripture?
From all four books in a quad.
Much more specific information in JST of Genesis, P of GP, and D & C section 45.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng#note10b
Not to mention number 10 of the A of F.
There was discussion BEFORE the ruling of James.
When James made his ruling the WHOLE church was in agreement to which my comment was directed.
Disappointed in you taking this tact.
19“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23and they sent this letter by them,
Yet a native GREEK speaker can read the GREEK texts and translate them.
That passage from the Protoevangelium is disgusting. It in no way rings true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.