|
Post by TarueBeliever on Mar 22, 2004 10:05:50 GMT -5
From the site that I reference in my last post: I. Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. One does not necessarily follow the other. The Father also sent Christ to die on the cross. Does this imply that Jesus sent his disciples to also die on the cross? No. It implies authority. The Father had the authority to send Christ. Christ had the authority to send them.In Reply #216 on 03/18/2004 at 16:49:05 to this thread, I showed that Christ did not give his disciples the power to forgive sins. He told them that by their receiving the Holy Spirit, they would be merely announcing the forgiveness of those sins that had already been forgiven in Heaven.In Genesis, the Bible doesn’t say " divine life." It says "the breath of life." In John, Jesus is giving them the Holy Spirit. These are two different situations, with no parallels drawn.Again, forgiving of sins is not a gift.This is a misinterpretation. At this time, the crowds didn’t know who Jesus was. They thought he was a mere man. They marveled that God had given the authority to forgive sins to a mere man. And this brings up a good point. When did the paralytic man in this pkmtyolpage confess his sins? And what penance did Jesus assign him? The man didn’t confess his sins. Nor did Jesus assign him penance … Jesus just told him to go home.Jesus, even on earth, was God.Again, the verbs for the actions in heaven are of the Greek perfect (English past perfect) tense – already has been done. When the apostles do the binding or loosing, they’re just following up on what’s already been done in heaven.Assigning penance to do for sin is not found anywhere in scripture. Yes, there are consequences for sin. But there are no examples of Jesus or the apostles assigning penance.I believe this refers to personal trespkmtyolp – forgiving those who trespkmtyolp against us.This has been taken out of context. The ministry of reconciliation refers to bringing the unsaved to a right relationship with God through Jesus.This doesn’t say the Elders forgive the sins. The Elders pray. God forgives the Sins.Again, he did not. There is no mention of “priests” in the New Testament Church except that Revelation 1:6 says, "and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." All Christians are in dwelt by the Holy Spirit. All Christians are successors to the Apostles. A separate cpkmtyoll of Christian believers -– priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, …, and the Pope is found nowhere in scripture.First, we’re not under the old covenant. Second, while there is mention here of the sinner confessing, the priest doesn’t forgive the sin. The priest offers a sacrifice on the sinner’s behalf to make atonement for the sin. Then the sinner’s sins are forgiven. In our case, our priest is Jesus. And he has already made the sacrifice once and for all that is necessary for our atonement. It’s only he who needs to hear our confession.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 22, 2004 10:21:04 GMT -5
This has been taken out of context. The ministry of reconciliation refers to bringing the unsaved to a right relationship with God through Jesus.Which can only be done after repenting your sins.This doesn’t say the Elders forgive the sins. The Elders pray. God forgives the Sins.Which is what I said at the end of my post and what the RCC teaches. The priest prays, God forgivesAgain, he did not. There is no mention of “priests” in the New Testament Church except that Revelation 1:6 says, "and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." All Christians are in dwelt by the Holy Spirit. All Christians are successors to the Apostles. A separate cpkmtyoll of Christian believers -– priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, …, and the Pope is found nowhere in scripture.In your interpretation.First, we’re not under the old covenant. Second, while there is mention here of the sinner confessing, the priest doesn’t forgive the sin. The priest offers a sacrifice on the sinner’s behalf to make atonement for the sin. Then the sinner’s sins are forgiven. In our case, our priest is Jesus. And he has already made the sacrifice once and for all that is necessary for our atonement. It’s only he who needs to hear our confession.
As he does in the confessional or out.
Scott Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Mar 22, 2004 10:39:52 GMT -5
Dear Ann,
Where in the Scriptures are provisions made for a separate cpkmtyoll of Christians made for priest, bishops, ..., the Pope ... what the "Catholic Church" calls the "What?"
Scott
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 22, 2004 10:43:26 GMT -5
Dear Ann,
Where in the Scriptures are provisions made for a separate cpkmtyoll of Christians made for priest, bishops, ..., the Pope ... what the "Catholic Church" calls the "Magisterium?"
Scott Scott, Please see the site that I have been referencing. On the home page, the column on the left lists the index where you just have to click on the subject you can find scripture pkmtyolpages listed for that subject. Thanx and blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Mar 22, 2004 23:03:32 GMT -5
Dear Ann,
I went to that website, "Scripture Catholic." First I looked up "purgatory." The first entry listed three pkmtyolpages that it said, "allude to a temporary state of purgation called a "prison." There is no exit until we are perfect, and the last penny is paid." Here are the three pkmtyolpages ...
25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Matthew 5:25 NASB
34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. Matthew 18:34 NASB
58 For while you are going with your opponent to appear before the magistrate, on your way there make an effort to settle with him, so that he may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. 59 I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the very last cent. Luke 12:58-59 NASB
These verses have nothing whatsoever to do with purgatory. They are from the teachings of Jesus as to how to deal righteously with our fellow man in this life. Matthew 5:25 and Luke 12:58-59 are literally about dealing with law suits. Matthew 18:34 comes from a parable about forgiving others just as we have been forgiven or else we won't be forgiven any more.
The website also lists Matthew 12:32 saying it "proves that there is another state after death." Here's that verse from the Catholic Bible ...
32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
and from the New American Standard Bible ...
32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
The difference being the the Catholic Bible translated the Greek word aiwn as "world" while the NASB translates it as "age." Which is correct?
One, the Greek word for world was kosmos. The Greek word aionios, a variant of aiwn, means "eternal." Even the Catholic Bible translates the word aiwn as "forever" in a few places such as Mark 3:29, Mark 11:14, and Luke 1:32. In Luke 18:30, the Catholic Bible translates the word aiwni both as "world" and as "everlasting" in the same sentence. It is certain that aiwn means "a long period of time" not "world." Jesus meant that blasphemy wouldn't be forgiven in that age (the age of the Jews) or in the age soon to come (the Church age).
It's time for bed now. More tomorrow.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 22, 2004 23:48:41 GMT -5
Dear Ann,
I went to that website, "Scripture Catholic." First I looked up "purgatory." The first entry listed three pkmtyolpages that it said, "allude to a temporary state of purgation called a "prison." There is no exit until we are perfect, and the last penny is paid." Here are the three pkmtyolpages ...25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.Matthew 5:25 NASB34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.Matthew 18:34 NASB58 For while you are going with your opponent to appear before the magistrate, on your way there make an effort to settle with him, so that he may not drag you before the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. 59 I say to you, you will not get out of there until you have paid the very last cent.Luke 12:58-59 NASBThese verses have nothing whatsoever to do with purgatory. They are from the teachings of Jesus as to how to deal righteously with our fellow man in this life. Matthew 5:25 and Luke 12:58-59 are literally about dealing with law suits. Matthew 18:34 comes from a parable about forgiving others just as we have been forgiven or else we won't be forgiven any more.
The website also lists Matthew 12:32 saying it "proves that there is another state after death." Here's that verse from the Catholic Bible ...32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
and from the New American Standard Bible ...32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
The difference being the the Catholic Bible translated the Greek word aiwn as "world" while the NASB translates it as "age." Which is correct?
One, the Greek word for world was kosmos. The Greek word aionios, a variant of aiwn, means "eternal." Even the Catholic Bible translates the word aiwn as "forever" in a few places such as Mark 3:29, Mark 11:14, and Luke 1:32. In Luke 18:30, the Catholic Bible translates the word aiwni both as "world" and as "everlasting" in the same sentence. It is certain that aiwn means "a long period of time" not "world." Jesus meant that blasphemy wouldn't be forgiven in that age (the age of the Jews) or in the age soon to come (the Church age).
It's time for bed now. More tomorrow.
Scott Scott, No offense, but there are many catholic thoelogians who have translated the texts throughout the ages. Many who were not catholic until they did translate the texts and when they did converted to catholicim. You are obviously very learned in translation, something that I can not claim. I respect you for your abilities and intelligence. But if there are still so many discrepancies even between learned people in the original language of the Bible, I still fall back on apostolic tradition as pkmtyolped down. I hope that your night was restful and peaceful. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 22, 2004 23:52:45 GMT -5
Excuse me if I have missed it in these many pages of this thread, but as far as I can recall I have not seen anyone name book, chapter and verse from the Bible where it states that sola scriptura is valid. Can someone help me with this?
Blessings to all,
Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 23, 2004 5:34:45 GMT -5
Scott, No offense, but there are many catholic thoelogians who have translated the texts throughout the ages. Many who were not catholic until they did translate the texts and when they did converted to catholicim. You are obviously very learned in translation, something that I can not claim. I respect you for your abilities and intelligence. But if there are still so many discrepancies even between learned people in the original language of the Bible, I still fall back on apostolic tradition as pkmtyolped down. I hope that your night was restful and peaceful. Blessings, Ann No Ann, you're falling back onto Rc tradition which has nothing to do with apostolic tradition or scripture. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 23, 2004 5:36:08 GMT -5
Excuse me if I have missed it in these many pages of this thread, but as far as I can recall I have not seen anyone name book, chapter and verse from the Bible where it states that sola scriptura is valid. Can someone help me with this? Blessings to all, Ann What does " not go beyond what is written", mean? I don'd recall the book, chapter and verse right now, but it has been posted. [/color]
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 23, 2004 10:31:37 GMT -5
Excuse me if I have missed it in these many pages of this thread, but as far as I can recall I have not seen anyone name book, chapter and verse from the Bible where it states that sola scriptura is valid. Can someone help me with this? Blessings to all, Ann What does " not go beyond what is written", mean? I don'd recall the book, chapter and verse right now, but it has been posted. [/color][/quote] gene, welcome back, hope you had a great weekend. So then which is right since we are also told to pkmtyolp on written and oral tradition, too. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Mar 23, 2004 15:37:16 GMT -5
Excuse me if I have missed it in these many pages of this thread, but as far as I can recall I have not seen anyone name book, chapter and verse from the Bible where it states that sola scriptura is valid. Can someone help me with this? Blessings to all, Ann The Bible does not need to claim that it is the only source of revelation. There are no other contenders for the title. Jesus said ... 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My WORD, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has pkmtyolped out of death into life.John 5:24 NASB (The emphasis is mine) " WORD" was translated from the Greek word " lo'gos." The word " lo'gos" carries a slightly subtler meaning. It means "the spoken word by which the inward thought is expressed." The New Testament scriptures express the " lo'gos" of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The Gospels and Acts were written by eyewitnesses (John and Matthew) or by men who associated closely with the eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). The remainer of the New Testament scriptures were written by men who knew Jesus (Peter and John) or whose emphasis was on spreading the " lo'gos" of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The " Apostolic Tradition" on the other hand was written by men who never met Christ. They wrote anywhere from 100 to 700 years after Christ's death and resurrection. The " Apostolic Tradition" is not a simple extention of the preaching of the apostles. It's a different religion. It's not the spoken words of Jesus. In some cases, such as Mary being "full of grace" it's opinion based on mistranslation of the Greek Gospels. In some cases, such as "the asumption of Mary", the " Catholic Church" admits that there is no evidence from the earliest centuries of the church that indicates that the early Christians, guided by the apostles and those who had known the apostles, believed in them. So they moved into " Apostolic Tradition" from later centuries and there they believe that they found these dogmas at least implied. So the CC moved forward on the assumption that these later century Catholics must have gotten their ideas from someplace, so that proves that the Church always believed in these two dogmas. They then define the dogmas and their definition of them acts as final proof that the church "perpetually believed" in them. In other words essentially what the Church says is; we believe it now, we wouldn't make a mistake, so that means the church has always believed it despite the fact that there is no evidence from the earliest centuries that they did. You can judge such circular reasoning for yourself. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Mar 23, 2004 16:55:03 GMT -5
The New Testament scriptures express the " lo'gos" of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The Gospels and Acts were written by eyewitnesses (John and Matthew) or by men who associated closely with the eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). The remainer of the New Testament scriptures were written by men who knew Jesus (Peter and John) or whose emphasis was on spreading the " lo'gos" of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The " Apostolic Tradition" on the other hand was written by men who never met Christ. They wrote anywhere from 100 to 700 years after Christ's death and resurrection. The " Apostolic Tradition" is not a simple extention of the preaching of the apostles. It's a different religion. It's not the spoken words of Jesus. In some cases, such as Mary being "full of grace" it's opinion based on mistranslation of the Greek Gospels. In some cases, such as "the asumption of Mary", the " Catholic Church" admits that there is no evidence from the earliest centuries of the church that indicates that the early Christians, guided by the apostles and those who had known the apostles, believed in them. So they moved into " Apostolic Tradition" from later centuries and there they believe that they found these dogmas at least implied. So the CC moved forward on the assumption that these later century Catholics must have gotten their ideas from someplace, so that proves that the Church always believed in these two dogmas. They then define the dogmas and their definition of them acts as final proof that the church "perpetually believed" in them. In other words essentially what the Church says is; we believe it now, we wouldn't make a mistake, so that means the church has always believed it despite the fact that there is no evidence from the earliest centuries that they did. You can judge such circular reasoning for yourself. Scott It helps to consider also that the apostles and those who associated closely with them expected the return of Jesus in their own life times. They were most proximate to the Word made flesh in history but had only just begun to reflect upon the meaning of the incarnation, only just beginning to articulate that meaning and to hone it in contrast to the many alternate meanings springing up. The incarnation of the Word made flesh is such a profound, such a tremendous event that more than a single generation is required to fully expound its riches. The New Testament gives us a snapshot of that first century's perspective. From there we need to trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "It is not the dry formula of a dogmatic definition by itself that pours light into the mind of a Catholic contemplative: but the assent to the content of that definition deepens and broadens into a vital, personal and incommunicable penetration of the supernatural truth which it expresses - an understanding that is a gift of the Holy Spirit and which merges into the Wisdom of Love, to possess Truth in its infinite Substance, God himself. Here the Truth is One Whom we not only know and possess but by Whom we are known and possessed." - Thomas Merton [/color]
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Mar 23, 2004 18:14:35 GMT -5
It helps to consider also that the apostles and those who associated closely with them expected the return of Jesus in their own life times. They were most proximate to the Word made flesh in history but had only just begun to reflect upon the meaning of the incarnation, only just beginning to articulate that meaning and to hone it in contrast to the many alternate meanings springing up. The incarnation of the Word made flesh is such a profound, such a tremendous event that more than a single generation is required to fully expound its riches. The New Testament gives us a snapshot of that first century's perspective. From there we need to trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit. "It is not the dry formula of a dogmatic definition by itself that pours light into the mind of a Catholic contemplative: but the assent to the content of that definition deepens and broadens into a vital, personal and incommunicable penetration of the supernatural truth which it expresses - an understanding that is a gift of the Holy Spirit and which merges into the Wisdom of Love, to possess Truth in its infinite Substance, God himself. Here the Truth is One Whom we not only know and possess but by Whom we are known and possessed." - Thomas Merton [/color][/quote] A large portion of the Catholic Faith is to overcomplicate the simple Gosple of Jesus Christ and then say only the Catholic Church can explain it. It then explains it in a series of dogmas, councils, briefs, treatsies, constitutions that are footnoted, endnoted, paragraphed, and bulletined worse than the laws put together by the US Congress -- and most of it's in a language that hasn't been spoken by the living in 1600 years -- Latin. Jesus gave to his disciples all they needed to spead the news of his coming to save men from their sins and from Sin itself -- the information and the Holy Spirit to guide them, teach them, and help them to remember his words. It's not that complicated. It doesn't take a lifetime to understand the Gospel. A child can understand it. Believe Jesus. Believe what he said. Do what he said. Enough said. No need for eight syllable latin words, special costumes, palaces, rings to kiss, titles, statues, and the rest. Scott
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Mar 23, 2004 22:55:25 GMT -5
A large portion of the Catholic Faith is to overcomplicate the simple Gosple of Jesus Christ and then say only the Catholic Church can explain it. It then explains it in a series of dogmas, councils, briefs, treatsies, constitutions that are footnoted, endnoted, paragraphed, and bulletined worse than the laws put together by the US Congress -- and most of it's in a language that hasn't been spoken by the living in 1600 years -- Latin. Jesus gave to his disciples all they needed to spead the news of his coming to save men from their sins and from Sin itself -- the information and the Holy Spirit to guide them, teach them, and help them to remember his words. It's not that complicated. It doesn't take a lifetime to understand the Gospel. A child can understand it. Believe Jesus. Believe what he said. Do what he said. Enough said. No need for eight syllable latin words, special costumes, palaces, rings to kiss, titles, statues, and the rest. Scott If it is so easy to understand then why so many denominations? Why do so many argue against the Holy Eucharist which is plainly stated by Jesus himself? What palaces? statues remind us of needing to spend more time with Jesus. Is it wrong to stress the importance of spending time with Jesus? Is reverence for our Lord and savior wrong? I do not think so. Blessings, Ann
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Mar 24, 2004 5:25:37 GMT -5
gene, welcome back, hope you had a great weekend. So then which is right since we are also told to pkmtyolp on written and oral tradition, too. Blessings, Ann The apostles did speak everytime they went someplace. That was oral tradition. These oral traditions were then written down so the words wouldn't get perverted. We, today, have those oral traditions in written form in the scriptures. The apostles never spoke contrary to what they wrote. This is too simple to miss, unless one wishes to follow the words of men who came later such as Rc "priests". [/color]
|
|