Did Christ make a mistake He later regretted?

[Lilyflower]

Did Christ in His humanity on earth make decisions He later in His Divinity regretted?

When Christ took the keys from the Jewish High Priests and gave them to Peter and through him the Apostles and their successors Mt 16:18-19, did He later regret this authorisation?

Is it possible that Luther had a private revelation with Christ who authorised him to over-rule the Apostolic Succession? If not, 'by what authority did Luther Re-order the Books of the Old Testament? Where in Scripture is it written which permitted Luther to do this?

Equally 'by what authority did the JW’s and Mormons change the meanings of certain passages of Scripture in breach of the codification?

 

[Yerusalyim]

In the deepest sense it’s impossible for God to “regret” or “repent” etc…God is perfect. Things such as "giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter were part of the divine plan.

Was Jesus PERFECT as a human…no. He was limited to the knowledge of his day and age while at the same time being imbued with divine knowledge as well…so…Christ as a human was unaware of the New World…didn’t perfectly speak and understand every language…couldn’t have built an automobile, etc He misquotes scripture (named the wrong man as High Priest when citing the example of David eating the Shew Bread)…that being said…CHRIST WAS SINLESS…making a mistake, being in error about certain facts…none of these constitute SIN.

 

[Steadfast]

Did Christ in His humanity on earth make decisions He later in His Divinity regretted?

When Christ took the keys from the Jewish High Priests and gave them to Peter and through him the Apostles and their successors Mt 16:18-19, did He later regret this authorisation?

Is it possible that Luther had a private revelation with Christ who authorised him to over-rule the Apostolic Succession? If not, 'by what authority did Luther Re-order the Books of the Old Testament? Where in Scripture is it written which permitted Luther to do this?

Equally 'by what authority did the JW’s and Mormons change the meanings of certain passages of Scripture in breach of the codification?

Tricksy.

The OT Canon is not a matter of divine revelation but of church competence.

The OT Canon Luther preferred was not one which he made up himself. It was the one preferred by Jerome and many before him.

At the time that Luther was living and working, Catholic Scholars (and Luther was a Doctor of Sacred Scripture) were permitted to have divergent opinions on the matter and at the time many were actually doing so (Erasmus and Ximines come to mind).

Another thing to consider is that, at the time, no one really made a big deal out of it. There were plenty of issues to take Luther to task for but his ordering of the OT Canon was not one of them. There wasn’t a peep out of his Catholic antagonists.

As for Matthew 16:18: Most Protestants understand it to refer to Peter’s confession, that confession being the rock upon which the church is built, here identified with Peter’s person while Catholics say it refers solely to his person and indicates Peter’s personal authority in the church which is a bit circular.

In any event, even if the Catholic view is correct, there is nothing here which would necessitate an enduring “charism” successively preserved and continued in his successors, or even more particularly that it has anything to do with the church’s competence to recognize and bind the Scriptural canon.

So you see, it is a matter of interpretation.

 

[Angelos]

In the deepest sense it’s impossible for God to “regret” or “repent” etc…God is perfect. Things such as "giving the keys to the kingdom to Peter were part of the divine plan.

Was Jesus PERFECT as a human…no. He was limited to the knowledge of his day and age while at the same time being imbued with divine knowledge as well…so…Christ as a human was unaware of the New World…didn’t perfectly speak and understand every language…couldn’t have built an automobile, etc He misquotes scripture (named the wrong man as High Priest when citing the example of David eating the Shew Bread)…that being said…CHRIST WAS SINLESS…making a mistake, being in error about certain facts…none of these constitute SIN.

What do you mean by the underlined part of your post?

 

[rossum]

What do you mean by the underlined part of your post?

I suspect the reference is to:

1 Samuel 21:1 "Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?”

Mark 2:25-26 "And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abibathar was high priest”

The name of the priest is different: Ahimelech vs Abibathar.

rossum

 

[Angelos]

I suspect the reference is to:

1 Samuel 21:1 "Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?”

Mark 2:25-26 "And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abibathar was high priest”

The name of the priest is different: Ahimelech vs Abibathar.

rossum

The difference is not restricted to the name of the priest I suppose. Jesus says: “David entered the house of God”. This is an example of anachronism since the house of God (the Jewish Temple) had not been constructed at that time.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Tricksy.

The OT Canon is not a matter of divine revelation but of church competence.

The Jewish community would disagree with your opinion, not to mention the prophets of the old testament, And How do you explain Jesus fulfilling the Old testament divine law, and Prophecies revealed by God himself through his prophets? Maybe Moses could help you believe the Old testament was a divine revelation, Moses convinced Pharoah of Egypt by God’s revelation, I am sure you have heard of the 10 plagues and the parting of the red sea?.

The OT Canon Luther preferred was not one which he made up himself. It was the one preferred by Jerome and many before him.

St. Jerome who translated the Vulgate bible? is this the same St. Jerome who was a Roman Catholic, that you have been badly informed of?. Luther was many centuries after St. Jerome, and Luther agreed with St. Jerome to remove the 7 books in question. The difference between these two Roman Catholics, one became a Saint because even though St. Jerome wanted the 7 books taken out, St. Jerome obeyed the authority of the Pope,To keep them in the bible because our dear Lord Jesus quoted from these; while Luther protested the authority and Chair of St. Peter.(Pope) and invented his own doctrine and removed 7 already canonized books of the bible. God said we are not supposed to remove or add to his word, Luther in his free will did what he wanted to, and so do the other over thousands of denominations.

At the time that Luther was living and working, Catholic Scholars (and Luther was a Doctor of Sacred Scripture) were permitted to have divergent opinions on the matter and at the time many were actually doing so (Erasmus and Ximines come to mind).

I agree with you, all the Roman Catholic saints,and bishops, argued, and had diversed opinions, But when their opinions and freewill thinking contradicted the Apostles Traditional teachings, and Jesus Gospels. The Pope and the Roman Catholic councils settled the matter, not the individual free thinker.

Another thing to consider is that, at the time, no one really made a big deal out of it. There were plenty of issues to take Luther to task for but his ordering of the OT Canon was not one of them. There wasn’t a peep out of his Catholic antagonists.

**Are you reading the same history that is recorded, or has some one distorted the facts to you? **

As for Matthew 16:18: Most Protestants understand it to refer to Peter’s confession, that confession being the rock upon which the church is built, here identified with Peter’s person while Catholics say it refers solely to his person and indicates Peter’s personal authority in the church which is a bit circular.

** What you are confusing here is when Jesus renames Simon Peter, and when Jesus gives Peter (singularly) the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what ever Peter bound on earth Jesus will bound in heaven, vice versa. So we have the first Pope possessing the faith, and the authority given to him by the Father in heaven, and the keys by Jesus himself, any other question? BTW, Catholics believe Jesus renames simon Peter after the heavenly Father revealed this to him (Peter) And his confession of faith, Jesus will build his Church, and also Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of God. This is believed for 2000 years, where have you been?**

In any event, even if the Catholic view is correct, there is nothing here which would necessitate an enduring “charism” successively preserved and continued in his successors, or even more particularly that it has anything to do with the church’s competence to recognize and bind the Scriptural canon.

** So then you are calling Jesus a liar, because he promised to be with his church for all ages? You disagree with the Holy Spirit, when he confirms the successors of the apostles, beginning in the book of acts? It is through the Holy Spirit that Jesus promise his church who would come after him, and reveal , and speak for them in all Truth, the bible was canonized by the Roman Catholic church under the authority of Jesus promise the Holy Spirit.**

So you see, it is a matter of interpretation.

The only matter of interpretation, is that interpretation revealed by Jesus himself to his apostles who Traditioned these revealed interpretations to their successors the Catholic Bishops and Popes. Who continue to teach and interpret a 2000 year old Tradition through Sacred Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is why the Roman Catholic church’s teachings are 2000 years old unchanged.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I like to reference this type of information as the hidden facts:

These different denominations all protest the one Holy Catholic apostolic church and her authority.

These different denominations, are different from one another, because they interpret the scriptures to fit their own ideologies, and cant agree on one faith one church one baptism one Lord, yes I mean one lord because they have many heretical and new invented interpretations of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

Every different protestant denomination and non catholic all were founded by either a man, woman or claiming to another angel. Please read Galatians 1:1-9

These founders all claim to have a hidden infallible interpretation of scripture.

These founders dont teach their communities the Truth that the bible comes from the Roman Catholic church, or just dont know the Truth that it does, not to mention they dont have a clue just protests against the Roman Catholic church trying to use the same bible, the Roman Catholic church gave us…

Jesus did not make a mistake, in establishing his church upon the Rock of Peter, because the Rock has outlived these protestant founders, and their teachings, becauset their teachings have since changed many times over since their inception from these protestant founders. The Roman Catholic church is the body of Jeus christ on earth while Jesus is the head in heaven. The Roman Cathoilc church does not change, because God cannot change. That is why Jesus built his church upon Rock Peter, our first Pope.

Peace be with you

 

[Steadfast]

Gabe,

I appreciate the time you took to respond to my post.

A few things:

1. St. Jerome did not translate the Old Testament Deuteros, they were inserted by redactors using old Latin texts.
2. Can you provide an example of a Catholic contemporary of Luther taking issue with his opinion on the canon?
3. Jesus’ various statements about the general competence of the church are not at issue in Matthew 16:18. All we are talking about here is what He meant when He called Peter, “Rock”. He did not at this time at all address what this being “Rock” meant for the future history of His church; i.e. again, there is nothing there which speaks at all to an enduring authoritative charism successible to those coming after him.
4. I’m Catholic though you may not think so.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabe,

I appreciate the time you took to respond to my post.

Your welcome

A few things:

1. St. Jerome did not translate the Old Testament Deuteros, they were inserted by redactors using old Latin texts.

St. Jerome transliterated the Greek bible using Hebrew texts available to him, into the Vulgar language, thus the Vulgate bible. ? being St. Jerome was a tri-linguist, where do you think the redactors got the Latin texts? Why does history record ST. Jerome wanting not to include the Deutero’s, and ultimately included them anyway as per the authority of the Pope. I think we may be getting off topic, because I am wanting to go many other places here, so I will stop here. Your comment is not that clear to me of what you are commenting about?

1. Can you provide an example of a Catholic contemporary of Luther taking issue with his opinion on the canon?

Me? just kidding, to which canon Catholic or Protestant? You have to forgive me, but wording and logic on these forums can be easily misinterpreted,

1. Jesus’ various statements about the general competence of the church are not at issue in Matthew 16:18. All we are talking about here is what He meant when He called Peter, “Rock”. He did not at this time at all address what this being “Rock” meant for the future history of His church; i.e. again, there is nothing there which speaks at all to an enduring authoritative charism successible to those coming after him.

** You make a good point here if the text remained by itself, but what you assume, is not what the full context is describing. If you take the statement of Jesus and apply it to his teachings, it confirms that Jesus is building his Church upon Peter “singular”. As far as the “enduring authoritative charism successible to those” successors of the apostles. Now that Jesus has resurrected, gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of God = Peter now has the duty with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to continue the apostolic authority. This is confirmed when Matthais replaced Judas, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.Scripture shows Peter excercising the Keys ( authority) given to him by Jesus himself. The Holy Spirit as you know was revealed at Pentecost. As promised by Jesus. This anointing of the succession of bishops is also portrayed by St. Paul himself to Titus and Timothy.

After the apostles, Tradition begins the successors of the apostles, while Peter’s Chair is always recognized from antiquity by Saints and Martyrs.**

1. I’m Catholic though you may not think so.

** Why wouldnt I think you are Catholic? Can you tell me why you are Cathoic and not Roman Catholic?**

 

[Steadfast]

**Why does history record ST. Jerome wanting not to include the Deutero’s, and ultimately included them anyway as per the authority of the Pope. **

It doesn’t, this is a fiction perpetuated by Catholic apologists. It never happened.

Me? just kidding, to which canon Catholic or Protestant? You have to forgive me, but wording and logic on these forums can be easily misinterpreted,

My point was that at the time no one thought Luther’s opinions on the canon a big deal, what are they a big deal now? I am looking for a contemporary of his who took issue with this stances on the canon.

Here’s a hint: there aren’t any because everyone understood that his opinion on the canon was a legitimate one for a Doctor of Sacred Scripture to hold.

Ergo, any argument today that rests on his canonical choices is a waste of time because it means nothing.

If you prefer, I am Roman Catholic. It is odd but many Catholics around here take issue with being called that. They seem to think that it narrows their confession unduly and makes room for the (mis)appropriation of the word “catholic” by Protestants, something that, if it happens will surely harbinge the end of days.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It doesn’t, this is a fiction perpetuated by Catholic apologists. It never happened.

What never happened that St. Jerome did not translate the Greek into the Latin (vulgate bible)? or St. Jerome did not translate the Deuturo canonical books?

My point was that at the time no one thought Luther’s opinions on the canon a big deal, what are they a big deal now? I am looking for a contemporary of his who took issue with this stances on the canon.

**B]For one if I may offer an opinion here that coincides with Roman Catholilc Tradition, It may not have been a big deal at first, because Luther was only an independent scholar, and the Roman Catholic church always gave freedom to people such as these including the saints who came up with some of their own interpretations, but they remained personal interpretations, and were not approved for doctrinal teaching or support of doctrinal Tradition teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

Luthers canon is a big deal now, because his teachings have distanced themselves and splintered into freewill thinking christianity and distanced themselves from the apostolic Catholic Tradition of the Gospels of Jesus. Futhermore, it is of concern because these freewill christians because they have no apostolic Tradition, are now claiming that a Luther canon less 7 books and includes an added word by Luther himself “alone” in Romans, to be their only authority on earth leaving these freewill christians to believe what ever wind of doctrine that tickles their ears, by their human or woman founders. Thus making it a huge concern today! That is why the bible history needs to be revealed to the world, the Roman Catholic church canonized the bible under the AUTHORITY OF JESUS WHO GAVE IT TO PETER WHO GAVE IT TO HIS SUCCESSORS TO WHOM THE HOLY SPIRIT AUTHENTICATED THE BIBLE AS HE ALWAYS HAS THROUGH THE MAGESTERIUM OFTHE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.**

Here’s a hint: there aren’t any because everyone understood that his opinion on the canon was a legitimate one for a Doctor of Sacred Scripture to hold.

As much as I try to find common ground with you, I have to disagree with your above statement. First of all Iam not sure of which century you speak of who all agreed? I am unable to state my disagreement fully here? For one, Luther has a right to his opinion, secondly, his opinion got him excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church. Why? because he was given many oppurtunities to recant his opinion. Had he left it as an opinion we may have a different society today, because he chose to believe he was more correct and all the Saints and Martyrs before him, must of got it wrong, and Luther severed himself from the apostolic Tradition, is why we have so many different Protestant and non Cathoilic christian beliefs holding to an incomplete bible KJV as their sole authority, without any apostolic teaching, only the ones, that they chose to take with them from the Roman Catholic church and lost the valid sacraments from the bible and apostolic Tradition. For example, baptism, marriage, Sunday worship, Easter, Christmas, the calendar etc.

Ergo, any argument today that rests on his canonical choices is a waste of time because it means nothing.

** I hope I am reading your posts correctly? because I would agree here with you totally, because to argue for Luthers canon and I would emphasize “Luther’s Choices” is a waste of time for those who argue for them. Because history proves differently. Roman Catholic apologists and others just want to inform humanity of the Truth of where their bible came from and why their appears to be two, when actually there are not two but only one, and the KJV has 7 missing books. This is undisputed facts by all doctors, scholars and independent free thinkers. The lay person and the simple pew church goer needs to know the Truth of how they got the bible, This is why it is of importance today, because people are asking and want the Truth. That is why Jesus Named Peter “Rock” because Jesus new that this Rock cannot be moved or changed, in his body on earth which as you know is the Catholic church, with the Pope ( Peter) as Christ’s Vicar on earth.**

If you prefer, I am Roman Catholic. It is odd but many Catholics around here take issue with being called that. They seem to think that it narrows their confession unduly and makes room for the (mis)appropriation of the word “catholic” by Protestants, something that, if it happens will surely harbinge the end of days.

**I prefer Catholic, I use Roman Catholic when distinguishing authority of Jesus Christ on Earth through the chair of Peter.

Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you **

 

[thecoach]

I like to reference this type of information as the hidden facts:

These different denominations all protest the one Holy Catholic apostolic church and her authority.

These different denominations, are different from one another, because they interpret the scriptures to fit their own ideologies, and cant agree on one faith one church one baptism one Lord, yes I mean one lord because they have many heretical and new invented interpretations of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit.

Every different protestant denomination and non catholic all were founded by either a man, woman or claiming to another angel. Please read Galatians 1:1-9

These founders all claim to have a hidden infallible interpretation of scripture.

These founders dont teach their communities the Truth that the bible comes from the Roman Catholic church, or just dont know the Truth that it does, not to mention they dont have a clue just protests against the Roman Catholic church trying to use the same bible, the Roman Catholic church gave us…

Jesus did not make a mistake, in establishing his church upon the Rock of Peter, because the Rock has outlived these protestant founders, and their teachings, becauset their teachings have since changed many times over since their inception from these protestant founders. The Roman Catholic church is the body of Jeus christ on earth while Jesus is the head in heaven. The Roman Cathoilc church does not change, because God cannot change. That is why Jesus built his church upon Rock Peter, our first Pope.

Peace be with you

They why, and I have asked this MANY times without getting a logical answer, why was Peter NOT the head of the Church at Jerusalem, the center and birthplace of the new church? Why was it James? Why is the “giving of the keys” in only ONE of the four Gospels if it was so important?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

They why, and I have asked this MANY times without getting a logical answer, why was Peter NOT the head of the Church at Jerusalem, the center and birthplace of the new church? Why was it James? Why is the “giving of the keys” in only ONE of the four Gospels if it was so important?

For one Peter was always on the move; evangelizing Jewish communities into the Christian faith from Judaism. Peter would leave other selected apostles to continue to feed the flock with the communial lifestyle and breaking of bread ( see acts). Peter entered Rome and started a community of believers their before his martyrdom.According to Tradition and sacred scripture.

You may want to consider why Jesus came and died then resurrected to answer the Jerusalem question? Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple of God in Jerusalem. There is a bigger picture of salvation that meets the eye on the pages of the gospels, this is one reason why the Roman Cathoic church holds to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Jesus not only gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of God, Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose on earth what ever, and he Jesus will bind and loose in heaven, Power to forgive sins, but most of all, Jesus commanded Peter in the Gospel of John, to feed his sheep, teach his sheep ect.

Peter was the head of the church in Jerusalem and everywhere else the church was. Peter was given the authority to excercise this binding and loosing, how do you think gentiles were converting, Peter was given the sign to accept them (gentiles) into the sheep fold., James was an apostle not a bishop, but if I could use this overseer term bishop for James, to distinguish him from Peter. James had authority for Jerusalem, but Peter ultimately decided or approved councils decisions, Paul became the evangelizer of gentiles.

Jerusalem was the starting point, Rome was the pagan world power. The Lamb of God conquered the world, and left Peter in charge before he conquered it. Then died and resurrected to prepare a place of mansions for his bride when he returns. Peter is still here today for 2000 years and still awaits his King of King and Lord of Lords to return for his body his bride the Catholic church.

I hope this helps, Peace be with you

 

[lak611]

Jesus never made any mistakes. He is Divine. God cannot make mistakes. God is perfect. Mistakes are not possible for a perfect God.

 

[Sam_777]

rossum;3709974:

I suspect the reference is to:

1 Samuel 21:1 "Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said to him, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?”

Mark 2:25-26 "And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abibathar was high priest”

The name of the priest is different: Ahimelech vs Abibathar.

rossum

The difference is not restricted to the name of the priest I suppose. Jesus says: “David entered the house of God”. This is an example of anachronism since the house of God (the Jewish Temple) had not been constructed at that time.

Since Jesus is Lord, I never ever think that he would do any mistake, read these links for more explanation about “1 Samuel 21:1” & “Mark 2:25-26”.
apologeticspress.org/articles/506
lookinguntojesus.net/ata20021013.htm

 

[Steadfast]

1. Jerome never translated the Deutero-Canonicals.
2. If, at the time that Luther lived and worked, no one cared about his canonical opinions, or considered them (esp. since they were nearly identical with those of eminent Catholic scholars like Erasmus and Ximenes) heterodox or even odd, then we cannot take him to task for them today and every effort to do so is nothing more than an attempt to beat him with every available stick and even some that, if justice is to have any meaning for Christians, really shouldn’t be used.

Luther’s opinions on the OT Deuteros had nothing to do with his rebellion.

He derived every doctrine and opinion that did inform his rebellion from canonical texts wrongly applied.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1. Jerome never translated the Deutero-Canonicals.

This is interesting, being that St.Jerome transliterated the septuagant into latin using the Hebrew text available to him for the transliteration. how do you explain why the Deut.Can. which are included in the Greek translation (septuagant) got translated into latin, when we have Jerome discussing the Deut.Canon with the Pope to not include them because (St. Jerome) he did not have the Hebrew counterparts to transliterate them into Latin?.

1. If, at the time that Luther lived and worked, no one cared about his canonical opinions, or considered them (esp. since they were nearly identical with those of eminent Catholic scholars like Erasmus and Ximenes) heterodox or even odd, then we cannot take him to task for them today and every effort to do so is nothing more than an attempt to beat him with every available stick and even some that, if justice is to have any meaning for Christians, really shouldn’t be used.

Luther’s opinions on the OT Deuteros had nothing to do with his rebellion.

Maybe not his original Protest, but this helped him get excommunicated,

He derived every doctrine and opinion that did inform his rebellion from canonical texts wrongly applied.

** So what does that make Luther, or Lutherans who follow his teachings? Heretics?, non believers?, excommunicated? or in Schism?**

 

[Steadfast]

1. Jerome did not “transliterate the Septuagint”. He translated the Hebrew texts into Latin. He did not translate the Greek OT texts.
2. Luther’s opinions on the canon had nothing to do with his excommunication.

 

[Angelos]

Since Jesus is Lord, I never ever think that he would do any mistake, read these links for more explanation about “1 Samuel 21:1” & “Mark 2:25-26”.
apologeticspress.org/articles/506
lookinguntojesus.net/ata20021013.htm

Thanks for the links, Sam_777

Blessings to you!