|
Post by Cohdra on Jul 27, 2003 11:34:28 GMT -5
To clarify and authenticate the power given to the apostles, it's important to understand what Christ was actually saying. I found this quite interseting and pertinent to our discussion. Q: On what basis does the Church have the authority to establish days of fast and abstinence?
A: On the authority of Jesus Christ.
Jesus told the leaders of his Church, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19, 18:18). The language of binding and loosing (in part) was a rabinnic way of referring to the ability to establish binding halakah or rules of conduct for the faith community. It is thus especially appropriate that the references to binding and loosing occur in Matthew, the "Jewish Gospel." Thus the Jewish Encyclopedia states:
"BINDING AND LOOSING (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . . Rabinnical term for 'forbidding and permitting.' . . .
"The power of binding and loosing as always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), 'became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.' . . . The various schools had the power 'to bind and to loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast-day ( . . . Talmud: Ta'anit 12a . . . ). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).
"In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. 16:19, 18:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who 'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers'; that is 'loose them,' as they have the power to do (Matt. 23:2-4). In the same sense the second epistle of Clement to James II ('Clementine Homilies,' Introduction [A.D. 221]), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: 'I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church.'" (Jewish Encyclopedia 3:215).
Thus Jesus invested the leaders of this Church with the power of making halakah for the Christian community. This includes the setting of fast days (like Ash Wednesday).
To approach the issue from another angle, every family has the authority to establish particular family devotions for its members. Thus if the parents decide that the family will engage in a particular devotion at a particular time (say, Bible reading after supper), it is a sin for the children to disobey and skip the devotion for no good reason. In the same way, the Church as the family of God has the authority to establish its own family devotion, and it is a sin for the members of the Church to disobey and skip the devotions for no good reason (though of course if the person has a good reason, the Church dispenses him immediately).
God bless www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q019.htm
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 29, 2003 4:31:59 GMT -5
hi gene, in case you are rushed, cohdra didn't say forgive, she said absolve. Jesus gave the apostles the authority to release or hold bound on earth. Only Jesus actually forgives, they just absolve. i gave an example that's in today's "age" a few posts back. however with these new boards it's often hard to remember where we leave off - it is for me anyway. Are you telling me that "absolve" and "forgive" aren't the same action with different words to describe the action? If Jesus forgives the sin, what does one need absolution for? That seems like a wasted effort. If I ask Jesus to forgive my sins, what do I need a "PRIEST" to tell me Jesus forgave me for? I already know that.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 29, 2003 6:17:53 GMT -5
Are you telling me that "absolve" and "forgive" aren't the same action with different words to describe the action? If Jesus forgives the sin, what does one need absolution for? That seems like a wasted effort. If I ask Jesus to forgive my sins, what do I need a "PRIEST" to tell me Jesus forgave me for? I already know that. Actually the words are not interchangeble nor similar. Where forgive means to pardon, absolve means to release. So in this sense, Jesus pardon's our sins, and the priest, through the power granted by God to HIs Apostles releases the sinner from guilt. I hope this clarifies it for you.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 29, 2003 9:01:47 GMT -5
I agree with CatholicChristian; There is no other way to interpret such a strightforward scripture, in any other manner than how it is presented. God bless As I've often said, you can take one or two verses and make a whole doctrine of them, but when you take all teachings on that same subject, a different conclusion is usually reached. People use a verse here or there to build doctrines . Example: There is a church that claims Jesus was crucified on Wednesday because He said He would be in the grave 3 days. They say 72 hours. Jewish reckoning gives us any part of a day was considered a day, so it wasn't necesasarily 72 hours, justy part of Friday, the Sabbath and He arose on the Sunday. When Jesus was on the road to Emmaus(S), the two He was walking with told Him about the crucifixation and said "this is the third day since these things have happened". This was Sunday. If only one verse of scripture was used, either position is arguable, but not if all verses on the subject are used.
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 29, 2003 9:12:25 GMT -5
Actually the words are not interchangeble nor similar. Where forgive means to pardon, absolve means to release. So in this sense, Jesus pardon's our sins, and the priest, through the power granted by God to HIs Apostles releases the sinner from guilt. I hope this clarifies it for you. Then confession to a "priest" is useless because no one needs to be told they don't have to feel guilty. There is nothing in the verses about one being released from guilt. If God forgives me, why do I need another man to tell me anything, and why would power from God be necessary to do that? Why is it that, as Rc's claim, if Mary were at a dying man's side, she couldn't give the man the same assurance? Why couldn't she release him from guilt? This makes no sense. [ 31] Besides, the power of the surpkmtyolpes that of the Blessed Virgin Mary; for, although this divine mother can pray for us, and by her praters can obtain whatever she wishes, yet cannot absolve a Christian from the smallest sin. . . . What is it about releasing one from guilt that is so mysterious that even Mary couldn't do that? I believe I have the correct meaning when I say that a "priest" claims to be able to forgive sins and they claim that authority from the verses in question.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 29, 2003 12:04:22 GMT -5
Then confession to a "priest" is useless because no one needs to be told they don't have to feel guilty. There is nothing in the verses about one being released from guilt. If God forgives me, why do I need another man to tell me anything, and why would power from God be necessary to do that? Why is it that, as Rc's claim, if Mary were at a dying man's side, she couldn't give the man the same assurance? Why couldn't she release him from guilt? This makes no sense. [ 31] Besides, the power of the surpkmtyolpes that of the Blessed Virgin Mary; for, although this divine mother can pray for us, and by her praters can obtain whatever she wishes, yet cannot absolve a Christian from the smallest sin. . . . What is it about releasing one from guilt that is so mysterious that even Mary couldn't do that? I believe I have the correct meaning when I say that a "priest" claims to be able to forgive sins and they claim that authority from the verses in question. [/color][/quote] I think you are clouding the subject by bringing Mary into to this. Let's stick with "forgiveness and absolution" Can we agree they are two different terms? We both agree that only God can forgive sins, correct? How about through the grace of God are we absolved? Let take an example from the "flesh" world. Suppose you steal something from me and are arrested. It is within my right to forgive you. Is it my right to absolve you? No, if you are guilty, only the judge can absolve you. But if I allow the judge to release you, then the law will absolve you. Jesus granted through the Word the Apostles the right to realease guilt. The priest are the inheritors of the right. May the Peace of the Lord be with you.
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Jul 29, 2003 13:01:40 GMT -5
absolve:
Main Entry: ab·solve Pronunciation: &b-'zälv, -'sälv, -'zolv, -'solv also without l Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): ab·solved; ab·solv·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin absolvere, from ab- + solvere to loosen -- more at SOLVE Date: 15th century 1 : to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt 2 : to remit (a sin) by absolution
forgive:
Main Entry: for·give Pronunciation: f&r-'giv, for- Function: verb Inflected Form(s): for·gave /-'gAv/; for·giv·en /-'gi-v&n/; -giv·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English forgifan, from for- + gifan to give Date: before 12th century transitive senses 1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt> 2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : PARDON <forgive one's enemies> intransitive senses : to grant forgiveness
I truly don't see a difference...
then someone suggested that one is a pardon, and the other is a release...I still don't see the difference:
pardon:
Main Entry: 1par·don Pronunciation: 'pär-d&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from pardoner Date: 14th century 1 : INDULGENCE 1 2 : the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty 3 a : a release from the legal penalties of an offense b : an official warrant of remission of penalty 4 : excuse or forgiveness for a fault, offense, or discourtesy <I beg your pardon>
By defintion, a pardon is a release?
Please attempt to clarify further why these terms are "different" for me? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Jul 30, 2003 6:38:49 GMT -5
absolve: Main Entry: ab·solve Pronunciation: &b-'zälv, -'sälv, -'zolv, -'solv also without l Function: transitive verbInflected Form(s): ab·solved; ab·solv·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Latin absolvere, from ab- + solvere to loosen -- more at SOLVE Date: 15th century 1 : to set free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt 2 : to remit (a sin) by absolution forgive: Main Entry: for·give Pronunciation: f&r-'giv, for- Function: verbInflected Form(s): for·gave /-'gAv/; for·giv·en /-'gi-v&n/; -giv·ing Etymology: Middle English, from Old English forgifan, from for- + gifan to give Date: before 12th century transitive senses 1 a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for <forgive an insult> b : to grant relief from payment of <forgive a debt> 2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : PARDON <forgive one's enemies> intransitive senses : to grant forgiveness I truly don't see a difference... then someone suggested that one is a pardon, and the other is a release...I still don't see the difference: pardon: Main Entry: 1par·don Pronunciation: 'pär-d&n Function: nounEtymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from pardoner Date: 14th century 1 : INDULGENCE 1 2 : the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty 3 a : a release from the legal penalties of an offense b : an official warrant of remission of penalty 4 : excuse or forgiveness for a fault, offense, or discourtesy <I beg your pardon> By defintion, a pardon is a release? Please attempt to clarify further why these terms are "different" for me? Thanks. Please note the function.
|
|
|
Post by AJoyfulHeart on Jul 30, 2003 7:21:43 GMT -5
If some one were to say stone me as they stoned Stephen. I could say "God do not hold this to their account" and God would not hold that one act against them. If however some one were to stone me and I wanted to I could say, "God remember what they are doing to me and hold it against them/" and he would. Does that mean that the first people I mentioned here are then saved and the second group can never be saved? Absolutely not! At the end of time unbelievers are "rewarded" acording to their deeds. And all unbelievers go to hell. the first group however would not have the stoning on their accounts although they would still go to hell for other deeds if they were unbelievers. Also I think that if we chose to say "hold this against them" then they would also be punished in this life for that crime against a believer. But if we chose to say "do not hold this against them" then they would not be punished for that sin. Just as Paul and the other pharisees were not punished for Stephen's death and in fact Paul was saved later. If Stephen had chosen to say "hold this to their account" Then I believe Paul would have suffered in this life in some way for hurting Stephen before he was saved. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jul 31, 2003 22:25:09 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe that some of the folks on here are arguing against Christ's very words. He gave the apostles this power, he breathed on them, giving them the power to absolve sins. There is no other possible interpretation of this verse. Any bible literalist on here is making a fool out of themselves at the least, and denying the very actions and words of Christ at the most. If Christ gave them a power, he gave them a power. Your questioning our Lord and Saviour. I'm sorry that Jesus does not fit into your tight little fundamentalist world. You better make room for him quick
God bless
God bless
|
|
|
Post by CatholicChristian on Jul 31, 2003 22:40:55 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe that some of the folks on here are arguing against Christ's very words. He gave the apostles this power, he breathed on them, giving them the power to absolve sins. There is no other possible interpretation of this verse. Any bible literalist on here is making a fool out of themselves at the least, and denying the very actions and words of Christ at the most. If Christ gave them a power, he gave them a power. Your questioning our Lord and Saviour. I'm sorry that Jesus does not fit into your tight little fundamentalist world. You better make room for him quick God bless God bless I guess I will repeat myself YET AGAIN! I will use the cut and paste method used by some on this board... How in the world is this a twist of scripture? This is from the KJV John 20:20-23 "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Revised Standard Edition: "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Jesus empowered his disciples to forgive the sins of others in His name. But confessing our sins out loud (as we should all do) is just the first step. You must be TRULY sorry and attempt to repair the damage the sin has done. Please explain to me how the Roman Catholic Church has twised this clearly written scripture?? If you take the Bible literally (sola scripture), then you CANNOT exclude this scripture and base it on your own version of what it means. It is CLEARLY stated, not matter what version of the Bible you use - and I have purposely NOT used a Catholic Bible to quote this scripture. God Bless. p.s. Unless you WANT to twist scripture! p.s.s. And this wasn't meant for you Cohdra!
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Aug 1, 2003 0:15:12 GMT -5
Please note the function. The function is only because you are looking back at it as an EVENT...which is a noun. But an event WAS an action, aka verb, when it occurred. A RELEASE...A PARDON...nouns...things...yet both involve action, do they not? It is simply the word for the ACT that occurred in that action. But I don't see saying we are empowered for one but not the other makes any sense...they are one in the same...except in reference to time?? Please clarify.
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Aug 1, 2003 0:16:30 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe that some of the folks on here are arguing against Christ's very words. He gave the apostles this power, he breathed on them, giving them the power to absolve sins. There is no other possible interpretation of this verse. Any bible literalist on here is making a fool out of themselves at the least, and denying the very actions and words of Christ at the most. If Christ gave them a power, he gave them a power. Your questioning our Lord and Saviour. I'm sorry that Jesus does not fit into your tight little fundamentalist world. You better make room for him quick God bless God bless Do we really agree on something? Woo-hoo!!
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Aug 1, 2003 0:19:45 GMT -5
I guess I will repeat myself YET AGAIN! I will use the cut and paste method used by some on this board... How in the world is this a twist of scripture? This is from the KJV John 20:20-23 "And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. Revised Standard Edition: "When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Jesus empowered his disciples to forgive the sins of others in His name. But confessing our sins out loud (as we should all do) is just the first step. You must be TRULY sorry and attempt to repair the damage the sin has done. Please explain to me how the Roman Catholic Church has twised this clearly written scripture?? If you take the Bible literally (sola scripture), then you CANNOT exclude this scripture and base it on your own version of what it means. It is CLEARLY stated, not matter what version of the Bible you use - and I have purposely NOT used a Catholic Bible to quote this scripture. God Bless. p.s. Unless you WANT to twist scripture! p.s.s. And this wasn't meant for you Cohdra! Does this mean that UNLESS you are worthy of that forgiveness, it doesn't count? That seems contrary to scripture... The truth of the matter is...the forgiveness lies not with him at fault...but with him who he wronged. If the person is forgiving enough to forgive REGARDLESS of repentence (he loved us while we were YET sinners...) then that is a great deed, is it not? Forgiving someone who has truly repented is EASY...try to forgive someone who is NOT sorry....then you will understand. (HE FORGAVE US WHILE WE YET SINNED....NOT after we repented!!) Romans 5 truly touched on this for me tonight before coming to the boards...so, I refer you all to that chapter (I TRIED to cut the most important part out to post...I COULDN'T find a part that was "more" important to the topic. MUST read the whole thing...it is ALL important.
|
|
|
Post by CatholicChristian on Aug 1, 2003 4:57:31 GMT -5
Does this mean that UNLESS you are worthy of that forgiveness, it doesn't count? You must be repentent in both mind and heart. We can say we are sorry until we are blue in the face but true repentence is from within. God Bless! CC
|
|