Do Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins on earth?

[joandarc2008]

Enough for what ,and what baptism ?

Of water ,or the holy spirit. into his body ?

Your questions make no sense - baptism with water is not enough - we would need the baptism by fire brought later - he was foreshadowing to Acts where the Holy Spirit would be breathed into the Apostles and they would be told that the sins they forgave on earth would be forgiven in Heaven - it is very clear.

 

[PRmerger]

Is the man made part because we have left out "purgatory " ?

The “man-made tradition” part is because you have no Scripture verses that give you permission to “conditionally” (whatever that means) condemn a man to hell. You have professed this but have not read it in a single page of Scripture.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

The “man-made tradition” part is because you have no Scripture verses that give you permission to “conditionally” (whatever that means) condemn a man to hell. You have professed this but have not read it in a single page of Scripture.

I think that what David was trying to say (having been a rabid anti-Catholic once upon a time) is not that he could condemn anyone, but that we can know that they will be condemned by their fruits and as such it is not inaccurate to state that “This person” or “that person” will be condemned.

If I am inaccurate david, please correct me.

TNo ,by His grace I am like the Jews who by faith, are justified by God , from Abraham ,to David to Peter and Paul.

Actually, David, you are like the pharisees who disavowed anything not explicitly written in the scriptures. In fact, you use their version of the scriptures (the tankh if I remember right) in which they cut out the 7 books which directly referred to the resurrection in 70 AD.

Jesus said this could (and did) happen. It is quite natural to be persecuted for truths sake.

Do not make the mistake fo thinking that correction for truths sake is persecution for truths sake. An attempt to bring protestants back into the light of Christs Truth in His Church which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apsotolic is not the same as persecution for Christs Truth. What you are being persecuted for is your personal hermeneutic regarding Christs written word (one half of His full word: Written and tradition [tradition meaning that which has been handed on, in this case orally]).

Your personal hermeneutic carries with it no authority, as you have nothing backing up your hermeneutic “circle” outside of your opinions and the opinions of those that agree with you; a line which ends with one of the revolters (reformers, whatever), whil the Catholic scriptural hermeneutic continues on to the 12, and through the 12, to Christ.

No it was yours .You challenged the word" naturally" .I posed the question if I should be like you and raise a fuss about "supernatural " not being in the bible . I did not challenge your word , but instead said it was “unnatural”. We are both in agreement that words can be used that are not in scripture directly.

If we can use words that are not in [written] scriptures directly then why is it wrong, in your opinion, for Catholics to say that priests have the authority (given by Christ to be exercised in HIS name) to absolve sinners of their sin (John 20:23)?

FSC

 

[Cat_Herder]

Actually, David, you are like the pharisees who disavowed anything not explicitly written in the scriptures. In fact, you use their version of the scriptures (the tankh if I remember right) in which they cut out the 7 books which directly referred to the resurrection in 70 AD.

I think that is the Saducees. They are the ones who used only the Torah/Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and denied the resurrection, spirits and angels.

IIRC, the Pharisees had an Oral Torah in addition to using the Writings and Prophets as Scripture. However, their canon was not identical to the TaNaKh used by modern Judaism.

 

[david_ruiz]

No he actually says this is my blood this my body - then people leave - and he does not call them back and correct them as he does in other Scriptures - he allows them to go as they are not prepared to follow Him in His instructions in their entirety.

What i like about what you said is that perhaps they were not prepared to follow his instructions or I would say fully understand what was about to happen .Hence they may have not known fully what Christ meant by this is my body,for He was still intact.I would say they understood it in their context ,which is Jewish .In the future ,when they celebrate the Passover (or any Todah,if you like) they were to remember Him ,as the new Lamb ,the new testator, literally.

 

[david_ruiz]

So you can’t know with certainty if your sins are forgiven?

 

[joandarc2008]

What i like about what you said is that perhaps they were not prepared to follow his instructions or I would say fully understand what was about to happen .Hence they may have not known fully what Christ meant by this is my body,for He was still intact.I would say they understood it in their context ,which is Jewish .In the future ,when they celebrate the Passover (or any Todah,if you like) they were to remember Him ,as the new Lamb ,the new testator, literally.

Except there were any other number of places they could have left - they left after he told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood - other times in the past he had called them back and explained - this time he did not.

Here this is a pretty good video take a look at it:

Jesus Christ in the Eucharist

I am suggesting it because it does a lot of the translations.

 

[david_ruiz]

Yes, david, you did indeed say it was me.

Sorry .It was not you ,but as I implied lastly (# 278) on this , it is implied in this thread topic.

 

[david_ruiz]

Ok. But they rejected Him.

 

[david_ruiz]

I didn’t ask for Scriptures that “deal with hell”.

In any true “dealing with hell” ,you would certainly talk of the condition that sends a soul there ,would you not ? I believe I provided a few of those .I think you will be happy if I recant though , for indeed there is no such word "conditiojnally’ in the bible .May I say the Bible ,the Body ,the Church proclaims to the the world ,what they must do to be saved .They also tell how to be damned.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I think that is the Saducees. They are the ones who used only the Torah/Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and denied the resurrection, spirits and angels.

IIRC, the Pharisees had an Oral Torah in addition to using the Writings and Prophets as Scripture. However, their canon was not identical to the TaNaKh used by modern Judaism.

Yup yup yup. Sorry, I was being rushed out the door. Thanks for the catch…

Thats so embarassing. I thought “Saducee” and typed “Pharisee”.

 

[david_ruiz]

Your questions make no sense - baptism with water is not enough - we would need the baptism by fire brought later - he was foreshadowing to Acts where the Holy Spirit would be breathed into the Apostles and they would be told that the sins they forgave on earth would be forgiven in Heaven - it is very clear.

I agree in the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Pentecost) .Do you ? Are you charismatic ? I like your insight ,but mine goes another way . I believe blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable ,and when one rejects the "message " of Peter ,and the apostles ,one rejects the power and person also in which it is given,the Holy Spirit .The Spirit spoke thru Peter and the Spirit spoke to the people listening to Peter. Indeed, at least a foreshadow -I like that.The Holy Spirit is in us.

 

[david_ruiz]

The “man-made tradition” part is because you have no Scripture verses that give you permission to “conditionally” (whatever that means) condemn a man to hell. You have professed this but have not read it in a single page of Scripture.

Again ,I understand your objection to the term "conditionally’-that which must be for something to happen .I withdraw the "unbiblical"term .I can only tell of what the bible says a man must do to go to hell.

 

[joandarc2008]

I agree in the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Pentecost) .Do you ? Are you charismatic ? I like your insight ,but mine goes another way . I believe blaspheming the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable ,and when one rejects the "message " of Peter ,and the apostles ,one rejects the power and person also in which it is given,the Holy Spirit .The Spirit spoke thru Peter and the Spirit spoke to the people listening to Peter. Indeed, at least a foreshadow -I like that.The Holy Spirit is in us.

No I am not a charismatic although I would say that all services have some charismatic services in them - I would say that this was a very strong foreshadowing to Confirmation, Reconciliation, and Eucharist - all Sacraments that have the Grace of the Holy Spirit attached to them - the latter two are healing and can be received over the course of a lifetime. What Peter received was the Holy Spirit in the form of ordination but I think you miss that because of not being able to look for the translations. But there is no use because you don’t seem to care about the truth you have already turned away from the truth.

 

[david_ruiz]

I think that what David was trying to say (having been a rabid anti-Catholic once upon a time) is not that he could condemn anyone, but that we can know that they will be condemned by their fruits and as such it is not inaccurate to state that “This person” or “that person” will be condemned.

 

[david_ruiz]

I think that is the Saducees. They are the ones who used only the Torah/Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) and denied the resurrection, spirits and angels.

IIRC, the Pharisees had an Oral Torah in addition to using the Writings and Prophets as Scripture. However, their canon was not identical to the TaNaKh used by modern Judaism.

Thanks .Good info.

 

[david_ruiz]

Except there were any other number of places they could have left - they left after he told them to eat His flesh and drink His blood - other times in the past he had called them back and explained - this time he did not.

Here this is a pretty good video take a look at it:

Jesus Christ in the Eucharist

I am suggesting it because it does a lot of the translations.

Thanks saw half the video (it’s late ).We are both in a fix -hook line and sinker , taken in by our convictions.This is an impossible breach ,except for God…Believe me , a video could be made explaining the other side of the debate,using the same scripture. It is quite clear who left and why ,who stayed and why.Thinking Jewish helps. Thinking “gentile” does not , for some have traditions of eating flesh to attain qualities of the flesh giver ( but i consider this low on the swaying scale).

 

[david_ruiz]

Yup yup yup. Sorry, I was being rushed out the door. Thanks for the catch…

Thats so embarassing. I thought “Saducee” and typed “Pharisee”.

Thanks for being so honest and human (rushing out the door) Debating sure can depersonalize us,at least me .I need to see the human aspect to us .Did they teach you that the Saducees were sad because they did not believe in the resurrection ? Funny memory shaper.

 

[david_ruiz]

No I am not a charismatic although I would say that all services have some charismatic services in them - I would say that this was a very strong foreshadowing to Confirmation, Reconciliation, and Eucharist - all Sacraments that have the Grace of the Holy Spirit attached to them - the latter two are healing and can be received over the course of a lifetime. What Peter received was the Holy Spirit in the form of ordination but I think you miss that because of not being able to look for the translations. But there is no use because you don’t seem to care about the truth you have already turned away from the truth.

What do you mean by translations ? I do not see it as ordination per say.If it is ,then it is for all ,for we are baptized with the Holy Spirit also.

 

[david_ruiz]

1. Prove the claim you made that the OT foreshadowed the Catholic church priesthood; you made the claim; now prove it.
2. a] “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” Mark 2:7

b] The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, “Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” Luke 5:21

Prove that anyone can forgive a single sin except for God; you made the claim. Here is the rebuttal to that claim from the very God breathed Word of God.

Welcome Jenny 4Him. Not easy to “jump in” on a thread .We have all been frantically buzzing at each other and I have seen no response to your points. Been there done that (gotten no response) .Don’t give up.