Catholics Don't Understand Church History

  • Thread starter Thread starter faith4ever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Julius_Caesar said:
40.png
mcq72:
Any proof that he did? (that Judas was a true believer at beginning)
Click to expand...
I just gave it.
Click to expand...
Well, again all does not necesarily mean (when all adored Him when Jesus calmed the storm). Just like you rightly cited that “All have sinned” is not all for Christ did not sin ( nor Mary according to some), we have a possible exception here also, with John 6: 64

Does everyone who adores Christ after a marvelous work mean they are a true believer, believing more than the devil who also believes? So anyone who worships is saved, a true believer? What happened to worshipping in truth and Spirit?

But I will take your point. I do believe Judas and many others thought Jesus to be the Messiah, even that he possibly adored/ worshipped Him on the boat. Yet, I also think it was quite possible that Jesus includes Judas as not believing from the beginning, like the others in John 6. Judas also calls Jesus rabbi, not Lord, at the last supper I think, whereas apostles call Him Lord.

If you want to say they all believed imperfectly and had to grow in truth and Spirit, fine. Perhaps the sewer and the seed parable is applicable.

For sure Jesus had many false disciples (non apostle) and followers who were false and followed for the wrong reasons, from the beginning, in John 2. Judas may have been one of them.

My main point is that those followers/ disciples that left Jesus after the bread of life discourse were false followers before the discourse. The talk of gnawing on Him brought it to a head/ rightful conclusion. It is not like they were true believers and then left at the eating prospect. That in my opinion is eisegesis.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Just like you rightly cited that “All have sinned” is not all for Christ did not sin ( nor Mary accordingvto some), we have a possible exception here also, with John 6: 64
Click to expand...
John 6:64 distinguishes between the two groups.
mcq72 said:
For sure Jesus had many false disciples (non apostle) and followers who were false and followed for the wrong reasons, from the beginning, in John 2. Judas may have been one of them.
Click to expand...
May have doesn’t not equal without a doubt.
mcq72 said:
Yet, I also think it was quite possible that Jesus includes Judas as not believing from the beginning, like the others in John 6. Judas also calls Jesus rabbi, not Lord, at the last supper I think, whereas apostles call Him Lord.
Click to expand...
There’s a huge change in relationship here.

And you also must take this verse.

And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.
John 17:11‭-‬12 NABRE
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
And you also must take this verse.

And now I will no longer be in the world, but they are in the world, while I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are. **When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.
**
John 17:11‭-‬12 NABRE
Click to expand...
Again, this text can be used to suggest both sides of the conversation. For sure God orchestrated everything, even being a friend to the son of perdition.
 
The text is clear. God gave the Twelve to Jesus. Judas went his own way.

Peter has this to say of him.

He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry.
Acts 1:17 NABRE

Which is different from what he says of a false disciple.

But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God.
Acts 8:20‭-‬21 NABRE
 
Julius_Caesar said:
John 6:64 distinguishes between the two groups.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Not definitive. If the topic is non belief, even from beginning, I would distinguish Judas also, for two reasons: he was not only not believing, he was amongst the apostles, and would be a betrayer.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
The text is clear. God gave the Twelve to Jesus. Judas went his own way.
Click to expand...
Again, does not decide issue. Of course God/Jesus gave/chose Judas. Does that make him a true believer from beginning? As you say Judas went his own way, no surprise to God/ Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
Either yes or.no.

Let’s take a look.

But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe AND the one who would betray him.

John 6:64 NABRE

https://bible.com/bible/463/jhn.6.64.NABRE
Click to expand...
Not definitive. The and emphasized does not dustinguish between those that did not believe and those that did, for that is already declared but creates a seperate prophetic category of betrayer. We are left to properly determine if the and has a relationship to non belief or not. Can go both ways linguistically. We are speaking interpetively.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
The and emphasized does not dustinguish between those that did not believe and those that did, for that is already declared but creates a seperate prophetic category of betrayer
Click to expand...
AND creates a separate category. Sounds like distinguishing to me.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
AND creates a separate category. Sounds like distinguishing to me.
Click to expand...
Judas should be distinguished amongst the non believers. The others did not betray him but just left. The others were not apostles from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
In English, you are correct. The phrase could be interpreted both ways. In Greek, the original language that the Gospel was written in, however, it is not. Both phrases have vastly different tenses and subjects. While translated in English in the possible future, the original Greek distinguishes that these people do not believe at that specific moment. The second phrase denotes a completely separate definite future action.

In essence, Jesus is distinguishing those who currently disbelieve and that person who will betray him. They are mutually exclusive in the original language.

This lends itself to the exegetical tradition of the early Church that Judas did, in fact, believe that Jesus was the messiah; that he turned Christ over to the chief priests because be believed, in his pride, that he could stop the death which Christ foretold . Jewish executions were forbidden during the time of Passover and Judas had no idea that the priests would turn Jesus over to the Romans. His suicide was a result of the realization that he had unknowingly brought about that which he sought to avoid through his sin.
 
CRM_Brother said:
the original Greek distinguishes that these people do not believe at that specific moment
Click to expand...
Ok, I saw one expositor say was at the beginning of discourse. Of course many say was at the beginning of following. I like to cite John 2:24, 25

“But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.”
CRM_Brother said:
The second phrase denotes a completely separate definite future action.
Click to expand...
Agree. I would agree with speculation that it still begins to show a tainting of his faith, as shown by future gospel comments, of course written in hindsight.
CRM_Brother said:
This lends itself to the exegetical tradition of the early Church that Judas did, in fact, believe that Jesus was the messiah;
Click to expand...
Yes, I did see this explanation in a commentary or two, but was in the negative (not finding it plausible). Interesting and thought provoking…thank you.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Cant seperate ministry and authority.
Click to expand...
Yes you can. You can minister on behalf of the Church without the authority to change its teachings. I suspect you’ll say something in response by way of “But ministers have SOME authority of some stripe, right??” To which I would reply “Sure, but that’s not the kind of authority that’s germane to this conversation. Don’t play semantics with me, buster.” 😉
 
Raxus said:
but that’s not the kind of authority that’s germane to this conversation.
Click to expand...
Which conversation, about keys, about service, ministry?

Is there a time when the use of keys or authority that is germane to conversation, not ministering to the church?

Can you have salvific grace toward forgiveness of sins and even salvation ministered without authority?

Yes, there are different application of keys/ authority, and what one finds germane another may not.
 
Too wordy.

One can minister without being granted authority. That’s a simple fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top