How To Read and Understand The Bible

[NotWorthy]

scriptures simply means writings.

Holy Scriptures is the book of the Bible.

Jerome’s statement clarifies he does not believe the deuteros are are Holy inspired Scriptures.

St. Jerome used the Scriptures (that you call the non-Canonical) right in the midst of (Holy) Scriptures over 60 times, never differentiating between any differences between “holy” or simply “ecclesiastical”, except maybe when quoting from the Gospels.

But back to your point of “scriptures simply means writings”, where do you get this from? I’m curious, then, how you interpret 2 Timothy 3:16 - “All Scripture is inspired by God…”.

And finally, St. Jerome included them in the Scriptures, just as the Church told him to. The Church, who is the final authority (not St. Jerome), rightly made sure that they were put in their proper place.

 

[NotWorthy]

Jerome’s statement clarifies he does not believe the deuteros are are Holy inspired Scriptures.

… and that is simply his opinion… non-binding. The Church’s opinion on this matter, however, is binding upon the Faithful.

 

[EdOsiecki]

]I’d love to talk about the corruption that goes along with it. Well, actually I’d hate to, for it is a disgrace, but I’m perfectly willing to. Especially, if you can show me where that corruption has influenced Biblical Interpretation.

For instance, I’m not sure that St. Irenaeus was even remotely involved in, let’s say the corruption of the 12th or 13 centuries. As a matter of fact, I don’t know of any corruption accusations that have ever been thrown at St. Irenaeus. He certainly taught that Jesus was talking about Baptism in John, chapter 3. The Church has consistently reflected the teachings of St. Irenaeus in these 2000 years. Even corrupt officials didn’t conflict with these teachings. One could argue (and praise God) that these officials were too busy being corrupt instead of messing with scriptural interpretations!

But hey, that was a nice red-herring you tossed out there!

Its interesting that you mention this scene, for the first thing that Paul does is baptize the jailor and his household - his entire household!!! BTW, doesn’t it bother you that Paul says he and his household will be saved if the jailer believes in the Gospel? Pretty solid argument for infant baptism, which the 1st century Christian Church practiced, my brother!

BTW, “believe in the Gospel” means believe in what Christ preached. One of the things Christ preached was Baptism. That’s why Paul immediately baptized the jailer.

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. So you AGREE that the jailer and family got saved simply by BELIEVING. I said that’s what I believe too!---- So we are back to what I posted on 89 as follows: In Acts 16: 30, the jailer asked Paul/Silas, “What must I do to be saved?” They replied. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-----you and your household.” THIS I UNDERSTAND It’s the gospel that Jesus mentions in Mk 16:16. -------- What Paul/Silas DID NOT SAY to the jailer was: You first must be baptized which will wash away your sins and by so doing, that will get you started on your way to salvation and become a member of the church. You’ll then be taught about Penance, Transubstantiation, Confirmation and other Sacraments. Along with all of that, you should do some Novenas to the various saints, light candles, give money for indulgences, wear a brown scapular, say the rosary and attend Mass. All of these things are necessary works for salvation. But very importantly, you must pray for the dead people in purgatory because when you get there, you’ll certainly want someone to pray for you too so that you can get out. How many prayers will it take? No one knows but have faith . THIS I DON’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE MOST OF IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE… So I ask you AGAIN to explain to me what I don’t understand. Why was it so easy for the jailer and family to get saved by s(name removed by moderator)ly BELIEVING while the Catholic church requires so much more that is not in the Bible and then only assures purgatory? ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. So you AGREE that the jailer and family got saved simply by BELIEVING. I said that’s what I believe too!

No, that’s not what I said. I said they believed in the Gospel. That belief entails Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized, for the forgiveness of your sins…

But to your point about us agreeing, I think that if you interpret Scripture the same way you’ve mis-interpreted what I’ve said, then I see the problem.

---- So we are back to what I posted on 89 as follows: In Acts 16: 30, the jailer asked Paul/Silas, “What must I do to be saved?” They replied. “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-----you and your household.” THIS I UNDERSTAND It’s the gospel that Jesus mentions in Mk 16:16.

But does it say, “Once saved, always saved”? I don’t think so. Jesus clearly indicates in John 15 that those on the vine must abide in Him, or else He will prune them and they will be thrown into the fires (paraphrasing).

-------- What Paul/Silas did not say to the jailer was: You first must be baptized which will wash away your sins and by so doing, that will get you started on your way to salvation and become a member of the church. You’ll then be taught about Penance, Transubstantiation, Confirmation and other Sacraments. Along with all of that, you should do some Novenas to the various saints, light candles, give money for indulgences, wear a brown scapular, say the rosary and attend Mass. All of these things are necessary works for salvation.

No, the Church doesn’t teach this. Remember “Repent and be baptized”, just as Peter said. The Sacrament of Penance is discussed in John 20. Transubstantiation is discussed in 1st Corinthians and all the Gospels. Confirmation is shown in the Samaritans in Acts - although they had been baptized, they hadn’t received the Holy Spirit until the Apostles went to Samaria. Novenas are Scriptural - the Apostles went to the upper Room in Acts 1 and prayed for 9 days. This is where we get the Catholic Tradition of Novenas. They are beneficial, but not necessary for Salvation. Who ever told you that?

Lighting candles? Did you ever read Revelation in light of the Catholic Mass? It’s all through there, my brother! Indulgences and Alms? Cornelius in Acts 10 as well as Judas Maccabeus in Maccabees I (or is it II?) are good examples of that. Scapulars? What do you think of Peter’s shadow or Paul’s handkerchief? They are Sacramentals, my brother! Saying the rosary? The entire rosary is Scriptural! Attending Mass? Why would you not want to attend Mass. If possible, I attend Mass every day.

But very importantly, you must pray for the dead people in purgatory because when you get there, you’ll certainly want someone to pray for you too so that you can get out. How many prayers will it take? No one knows but have faith . THIS I DON’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE MOST OF IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE… So I ask you AGAIN to explain to me what I don’t understand. Why was it so easy for the jailer and family to get saved by s(name removed by moderator)ly BELIEVING while the Catholic church requires so much more that is not in the Bible and then only assures purgatory? ED O.

Why would you not want to pray for the dead souls.

One of the saddest things I’ve ever attended was a Protestant funeral, for no one prayed for the soul of the deceased. It was heart-breaking! For that reason, I will sometimes offer up prayers for the souls of the dead who have no one to pray for them, aka my Christian brothers and sisters!

BTW, Ed, you came onto this thread all nice and polite. Has your tone changed over the past few posts?

 

[EdOsiecki]

]No, that’s not what I said. I said they believed in the Gospel. That belief entails Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized, for the forgiveness of your sins…

But to your point about us agreeing, I think that if you interpret Scripture the same way you’ve mis-interpreted what I’ve said, then I see the problem.

But does it say, “Once saved, always saved”? I don’t think so. Jesus clearly indicates in John 15 that those on the vine must abide in Him, or else He will prune them and they will be thrown into the fires (paraphrasing).

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply Eph 4:30 “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God with whom you were SEALED for the day of redemption.” ------ Heb 7:25, “He is able to save COMPLETELY all who come to God through Him. Since He will live forever, He will always be there to remind God (shoud we sin) that He has paid for their sins with His Blood.” ( emphasis added) ------ Heb 6:19, " This certain hope of being saved is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls; connecting us with God himself behind the sacred curtain of heaven. v20 where Christ has gone ahead to plead for us from His position as our High Priest, with the honor and rank of Melchizedek." ------ 1John 5:11,“And what is it that God has said? That he has given us eternal life, and that this life is in His Son. v12 So whoever HAS God’s Son HAS life; whoever does not have his Son does not have life. v13 I have written this to you who believe in the Son of God so that you may KNOW you have eternal life. ------I have many more Scriptures if you would like.------ You see! When the Holy Spirit comes into a person, he becomes a new creature and avoids sin, but should a person then sin, read Heb 7:25 above.------ It would be very unfair of Jesus who tells us to forgive seventy times seven and wouldn’t forgive us if we sinned.------ Heb 9:27 states,“And just as it is destined that men die only once, and after that comes judgment” Paul said absent from the body and be present with the Lord.” ------- When I attend a Protestant funeral, there is much joy, a sinner has gone home to be with the Lord. As you can see! I don’t believe that there is a purgatory. It’s not in the Bible. ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

]No, that’s not what I said. I said they believed in the Gospel. That belief entails Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized, for the forgiveness of your sins…

But to your point about us agreeing, I think that if you interpret Scripture the same way you’ve mis-interpreted what I’ve said, then I see the problem.
Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply Eph 4:30 “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God with whom you were SEALED for the day of redemption.” ------ Heb 7:25, “He is able to save COMPLETELY all who come to God through Him. Since He will live forever, He will always be there to remind God (shoud we sin) that He has paid for their sins with His Blood.” ( emphasis added) ------ Heb 6:19, " This certain hope of being saved is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls; connecting us with God himself behind the sacred curtain of heaven. v20 where Christ has gone ahead to plead for us from His position as our High Priest, with the honor and rank of Melchizedek." ------ 1John 5:11,“And what is it that God has said? That he has given us eternal life, and that this life is in His Son. v12 So whoever HAS God’s Son HAS life; whoever does not have his Son does not have life. v13 I have written this to you who believe in the Son of God so that you may KNOW you have eternal life. ------I have many more Scriptures if you would like.------ You see! When the Holy Spirit comes into a person, he becomes a new creature and avoids sin, but should a person then sin, read Heb 7:25 above.------ It would be very unfair of Jesus who tells us to forgive seventy times seven and wouldn’t forgive us if we sinned.------ Heb 9:27 states,“And just as it is destined that men die only once, and after that comes judgment” Paul said absent from the body and be present with the Lord.” ------- When I attend a Protestant funeral, there is much joy, a sinner has gone home to be with the Lord. As you can see! I don’t believe that there is a purgatory. It’s not in the Bible. ED O.

But do you clearly see that one can be in God and then fall away? What about the parable of the sower?

Regarding Jesus’ forgiveness, of course He’ll forgive us. It’s made abundantly clear. But we must return to him and ask forgiveness, just as the parable of the Prodigal Son. The Son had to return to the Father. As long as he wallowed in the pig squalor, well… he wallowed in pig squalor.

Also, regarding the forgiveness of sins, what was Jesus talking about when He explicitly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive in His Name?

 

[Ginger2]

But do you clearly see that one can be in God and then fall away? What about the parable of the sower?

In God? does this parable say all those who hear the Word are immediately “in God”?

Luke 8:4-15 When a great multitude came together, and people from every city were coming to him, he spoke by a parable. "The farmer went out to sow his seed.

First who is the sower? If we are sowing seeds it means we are witnessing the Gospel of Christ to others. The seed is the word of God, not the hearer of God’s Word.

As he sowed, some fell along the road, and it was trampled under foot, and the birds of the sky devoured it.
Do not some we speak with trample our testimonies under their feet and mock God? Those seeds of truth are taken away from them.

other seed fell on the rock, and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture.

These people hear the good news and love it, but when they find there is a price to pay they lose interest. They just liked hearing about the love and forgiveness, but couldn’t accept the whole truth. They were never saved, they never accepted Christ Jesus on God’s terms, but picked and chose the the parts that pleased them while rejecting the more difficult truths.

Other fell amid the thorns, and the thorns grew with it, and choked it.

These people who received these seeds put worldly things before the things of God.

Other fell into the good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit one hundred times."

these are those who accept the Word and keep it.

Ginger

 

[SteveGC]

Ginger2:

In God? does this parable say all those who hear the Word are immediately “in God”?

Luke 8:4-15 When a great multitude came together, and people from every city were coming to him, he spoke by a parable. "The farmer went out to sow his seed.

First who is the sower? If we are sowing seeds it means we are witnessing the Gospel of Christ to others. The seed is the word of God, not the hearer of God’s Word.

As he sowed, some fell along the road, and it was trampled under foot, and the birds of the sky devoured it.
Do not some we speak with trample our testimonies under their feet and mock God? Those seeds of truth are taken away from them.

other seed fell on the rock, and as soon as it grew, it withered away, because it had no moisture.

These people hear the good news and love it, but when they find there is a price to pay they lose interest. They just liked hearing about the love and forgiveness, but couldn’t accept the whole truth. They were never saved, they never accepted Christ Jesus on God’s terms, but picked and chose the the parts that pleased them while rejecting the more difficult truths.

Other fell amid the thorns, and the thorns grew with it, and choked it.

These people who received these seeds put worldly things before the things of God.

Other fell into the good ground, and grew, and brought forth fruit one hundred times."

these are those who accept the Word and keep it.

Ginger

Although I don’t think the parable of the sower is the best evidence for revealing that once saved - always saved is erroneous, I do think, respectfully, that your interpretation of Luke 8:6 misses the mark.

8:6 Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture.

You interpret it as this:

These people hear the good news and love it, but when they find there is a price to pay they lose interest. They just liked hearing about the love and forgiveness, but couldn’t accept the whole truth. They were never saved, they never accepted Christ Jesus on God’s terms, but picked and chose the the parts that pleased them while rejecting the more difficult truths.

But Christ interprets it in verse 13 like this:

8:13 Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away

I believe we see that there are some who hear AND believe, with an initial belief (faith) on par with those in good soil (verse 8). They may only believe for a while, but the point is that they do indeed believe for that while…and then temptation lures them away. They aren’t just “hearing the news and loving it”, they commit to it with an ascent of their will, through faith. Indeed, Christ says “the received it with joy”. In fact, in verse 6, it affirms that the seed grew. I don’t know how it can grow if one did not accept it fully at it’s planting. And it doesn’t say anything about them believing only part of that truth - they heard it all, and believed. And then, they fell away. Same can happen with everyone.

The difference in verse 6 and 8 is not in the faith one initially has, but in how one maintains and cooperates with that faith throughout their lives. If they do well, they establish good soil for themselves, and are fruitful. If they don’t tend to their faith, they establish rocky soil, and the temptations of this world are more likely to weaken their roots, and they could eventually wither and die.

Point being…throughout our lives, we have responsibility to tend to our own soil (cooperate with the power of Grace), and make that seed within us grow. Fail to do that, and salvation can be lost.

 

[NotWorthy]

Although I don’t think the parable of the sower is the best evidence for revealing that once saved - always saved is erroneous, I do think, respectfully, that your interpretation of Luke 8:6 misses the mark.8:6 Other seed fell on rocky soil, and as soon as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. You interpret it as this:These people hear the good news and love it, but when they find there is a price to pay they lose interest. They just liked hearing about the love and forgiveness, but couldn’t accept the whole truth. They were never saved, they never accepted Christ Jesus on God’s terms, but picked and chose the the parts that pleased them while rejecting the more difficult truths.

In Matthew 13, Christ is even more specific.

20 The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and receives it at once with joy. 21 But he has no root and lasts only for a time. When some tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, he immediately falls away.

I must admit I was surprised by the initial interpretation of this parable.

And yes, Steve, I would say Christ’s message to the Apostles in John’s Last Supper account is a better example against Once Saved Always Saved. As well as St. Peter’s words of the dog returning to his own vomit.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The best way to interpret Scripture is not currently well-expressed within the Church, although I am trying to fix that now, with a book I am writing.

The best way to interpret Scripture is something called “Bible typology,” which is the study of Bible types, or symbols.

As much as I admire such efforts to understand conceptually and raise the mind’s eye above the cloud, I must warn that it is easy to misinterpret into intended concept and that presumption is truly the seed of ALL sin.

I once decided to not write in this one particular notebook anything that I couldn’t be absolutely certain beyond any potential doubt ever rising that it was 100% accurate and true. It took me quite a while to even open that notebook and nervously enter my first entry.

The result was that eventually I had a mountain truly undauntable and from that I could see so very many things above the clouds.

Much later, I chose to only speak what I knew beyond all potential question was the exact perfect truth. Again, it was quite a while before I could say anything at all to anyone. Eventually, although the exercise was well worth the effort, I had to accept that to communicate to anyone and especially to be at all friendly, I had to forgo such strives for perfection.

But then, I wasn’t writing a book for others to read and perchance disrupt their lives due to my accidental wording or misunderstanding. There is a responsibility associated with infecting others with your presumption. It isn’t merely your own life you cast into risk.

 

[EdOsiecki]

]

.

also, regarding the forgiveness of sins, what was jesus talking about when he explicitly gave the apostles the authority to forgive in his name?/

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. ----- John 20:23 Again, the Roman Catholic church created a dogma upon one verse. If the Apostles interpreted that Scripture like you say above, Nowhere, had they used that authority. In Acts 8:18-22 Peter rebuked Simon telling him turn from his wicked ways saying, “Perhaps God will forgive your evil thoughts” Simon then asked Peter to pray for him. Peter didn’t say, “Ok I’ll forgive you” did he?------- Mk 2:7. Only God forgives sins.------1John 1:9, If we confess our sins, He (God) is faithful to forgive—." Ps 32:5, " I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord."-----Ps 51:2-3, David confesses to God,------Heb 10:19, Born again believers go right to God," Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the Blood of Jesus.------ A priest is NOT a mediator between God and man CC #1456, only Christ Jesus is 1Tim 2:5. ----- Jesus has it right as He teaches us how to pray, Mat 6:9, " Our Father in heaven-----v12 forgive us our sins just as we have forgiven those who sinned against us." ED O

 

[NotWorthy]

]

.

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. ----- John 20:23 Again, the Roman Catholic church created a dogma upon one verse. If the Apostles interpreted that Scripture like you say above, Nowhere, had they used that authority. In Acts 8:18-22 Peter rebuked Simon telling him turn from his wicked ways saying, “Perhaps God will forgive your evil thoughts” Simon then asked Peter to pray for him. Peter didn’t say, “Ok I’ll forgive you” did he?------- Mk 2:7. Only God forgives sins.------1John 1:9, If we confess our sins, He (God) is faithful to forgive—." Ps 32:5, " I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord."-----Ps 51:2-3, David confesses to God,------Heb 10:19, Born again believers go right to God," Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the Blood of Jesus.------ A priest is NOT a mediator between God and man CC #1456, only Christ Jesus is 1Tim 2:5. ----- Jesus has it right as He teaches us how to pray, Mat 6:9, " Our Father in heaven-----v12 forgive us our sins just as we have forgiven those who sinned against us." ED O

I wasn’t aware that the Church based a whole dogma on one little verse. No, actually, I’m SURE the Church didn’t base this dogma on one little verse.

Regarding Peter and Simon the Magi, where did Simon confess and repent of his sins to Peter. Peter had no reason to offer forgiveness to Simon at that time. That wasn’t the point of the scene at all.

Now, you are very adept at Scriptural interpretation. Let me ask you:
a) What did Jesus mean, then, when He gave the Apostles the explicit authority to forgive in Jesus’ name? Peter healed people’s injuries in Jesus’ name, raised people from the dead in Jesus’ name. Why couldn’t Peter forgive sins in Jesus’ name when Jesus gave him that authority?
b) How many times does Jesus have to say something for it to be believed? I see Jesus saying one thing, and you go to other Scriptures to override the words of our Lord. That’s curious.

 

[cdanison]

Jeff Cavins: The great Adventure Bible study. Nothing better in my book. The Bible is library no just one book.

I have to agree that the Jeff Cavins Bible Timeline is the way to go. I have done all of them so far and now am in Revelations. His videos are fantastic and his knowledge of the scriptures, and some of the Hebrew interpretations make the learning exciting and very interesting. He starts with the OT and goes through Matthew, Acts, Revelations and Corinthians.

I would advise everyone to join in if you see this series advertised.

Connie

 

[EdOsiecki]

]I wasn’t aware that the Church based a whole dogma on one little verse. No, actually, I’m SURE the Church didn’t base this dogma on one little verse.

Regarding Peter and Simon the Magi, where did Simon confess and repent of his sins to Peter. Peter had no reason to offer forgiveness to Simon at that time. That wasn’t the point of the scene at all.

Now, you are very adept at Scriptural interpretation. Let me ask you:
a) What did Jesus mean, then, when He gave the Apostles the explicit authority to forgive in Jesus’ name? Peter healed people’s injuries in Jesus’ name, raised people from the dead in Jesus’ name. Why couldn’t Peter forgive sins in Jesus’ name when Jesus gave him that authority?
b) How many times does Jesus have to say something for it to be believed? I see Jesus saying one thing, and you go to other Scriptures to override the words of our Lord. That’s curious ]QUOTE

Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. If Jesus had said to the Apostles, “only the Father and I forgives sins but I’m going to make an exception and give you that same authority” then there would not be any question.------- (A) Since Jesus did not say that, the question then is are all the other Scriptures that say ONLY God forgives sins wrong? ------- (B) Why does Jesus, himself, tell us to pray to the Father asking Him to forgive our sins?------- (C) Heb 9:22, Without the shedding of Blood there is no fogginess of sins"-------- (D) In Acts 8:22, If Peter knew that he could forgive sins, why is he then telling Simon to repent perhaps GOD will forgive you. Since Simon asked to be prayed for which is a sign of repentance. Peter didn’t say, “Okay I’ll forgive you come aboard.” --------(E) John 20:23 also states the refusal of forgiveness. This verse very much parallels Mat18:18 ------(F) John 20:22 states that Jesus breathed on them to receive the Holy Spirit. Does that mean they received the Holy Spirit 3 times? At baptism, here and Pentecost? -------(G) The true meaning of some Scriptures compared to others is not very clear John 20:23 is one of them.------ (H) Nowhere, in the N.T. is there any record of people being confessed by priests. That ought to ring a bell??? What was their method of forgiveness? In fact, the whole priesthood/altar system ended at the cross as evident by the ripping of the veil from top to bottom Mat 27:51------ ( I ) You have a good point in your last question above. My question then to you, what am I to do, ignore all the other Scriptures.? The Bible can mean anything we desire with ONLY ONE verse. Mat 27:5 Judas went and hanged himself. Luke 10:37 Go do likewise. ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

If Jesus had said to the Apostles, “only the Father and I forgives sins but I’m going to make an exception and give you that same authority” then there would not be any question.------- (A) Since Jesus did not say that, the question then is are all the other Scriptures that say ONLY God forgives sins wrong? -------

Hmmm…, but Matthew says that the Jews praised God for giving this power to forgive sins to MEN (in the healing of the paralytic).

In Leviticus 5 (see below), a person who commits a minor sin can take a sin offering to the priest, confess his sins, and what? His sins are forgiven. Now, I ask you, *Who *forgave that man’s sins? God, through the holy priest. That pre-figured the priesthood of the New Covenant Church.

Also, doesn’t Jesus ask us to forgive other’s sin. The precedent is set for us to forgive the sins of others. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that God is forgiving us… UNTIL… Jesus gives that authority to MEN (whether or not you like the choice of words that Jesus used is rather irrelevant to me and to the Entire Christian Church from Her very infancy.

(B) Why does Jesus, himself, tell us to pray to the Father asking Him to forgive our sins?-------

Because we should do exactly that. When we approach the priest and forgive our sins, we are petitioning God to forgive our sins. It’s not an “either/or” proposition, my brother!

(C) Heb 9:22, Without the shedding of Blood there is no fogginess of sins"--------

I agree. What’s your point?

(D) In Acts 8:22, If Peter knew that he could forgive sins, why is he then telling Simon to repent perhaps GOD will forgive you. Since Simon asked to be prayed for which is a sign of repentance. Peter didn’t say, “Okay I’ll forgive you come aboard.” --------

Because Simon didn’t confess his sins. Did Simon say I will repent of my ways? I don’t see it, so I see no valid reason for Peter to say* “Okay I’ll forgive you come aboard.”
*

(E) John 20:23 also states the refusal of forgiveness. This verse very much parallels Mat18:18 ------

Correct!!! What an AWESOME authority for God to give to mortal men!!! Now, where did that authority go. Did Jesus explicitly give it only to the Apostles?

Also, you just pointed out yet another verse that “those Crazy Catholics” use to justify the dogma that we call the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You previously stated that we based in all on one verse.

(F) John 20:22 states that Jesus breathed on them to receive the Holy Spirit. Does that mean they received the Holy Spirit 3 times? At baptism, here and Pentecost? -------

Why, yes, they did. The Holy Spirit can (and is) given to us many, many times! Why is that hard to believe?

(G) The true meaning of some Scriptures compared to others is not very clear John 20:23 is one of them.------

I don’t understand your confusion. Jesus says, “If YOU forgive someone… I’LL forgive them as well. BUT if YOU DON’T forgive them… I WON’T forgive them either”. I think your confusion is based less on what Jesus says, and more on how your pre-conceived beliefs are clouding Jesus’ rather clear choice of words.

Please look at how I interpreted Jesus’ words and tell me where I’m wrong.

(H) Nowhere, in the N.T. is there any record of people being confessed by priests. That ought to ring a bell???

Why? I don’t see the reason that it has to be validated in Acts or Paul’s Epistles. The Epistles written were most often used to correct an error in doctrine(s) among the various communities or to uphold the beliefs of Christians who are suffering from persecution. Corinthians and Thessalonians are examples of the former reason and Revelation and Mark are examples of the latter reason.

What was their method of forgiveness? In fact, the whole priesthood/altar system ended at the cross as evident by the ripping of the veil from top to bottom Mat 27:51------ ( I )

I don’t see where Matthew 27:52 says, “and thus ended the whole priesthood/altar system”. Maybe your bible says that?

But what is the method of forgiveness? Why, it was prefigured in Leviticus:

5 then whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess the sin he has incurred, 6 and as his sin offering for the sin he has committed he shall bring to the LORD a female animal from the flock, a ewe lamb or a she-goat. The priest shall then make atonement for his sin. 7 "If, however, he cannot afford an animal of the flock, he shall bring to the LORD as the sin offering for his sin two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a holocaust. 8 He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer the one for the sin offering first. Snapping its head loose at the neck, yet without breaking it off completely, 9 he shall sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar. The rest of the blood shall be squeezed out against the base of the altar. Such is the offering for sin. 10 The other bird shall be offered as a holocaust in the usual way. Thus the priest shall make atonement for the sin the man committed, and it will be forgiven.

You have a good point in your last question above. My question then to you, what am I to do, ignore all the other Scriptures.? The Bible can mean anything we desire with ONLY ONE verse. Mat 27:5 Judas went and hanged himself. Luke 10:37 Go do likewise. ED O.

As I hope I’ve demonstrated, Catholics are not guilty of this type of bible-ripping when they are asked to explain their doctrines and dogmas.

 

[EdOsiecki]

]Hmmm…, but Matthew says that the Jews praised God for giving this power to forgive sins to MEN (in the healing of the paralytic).

In Leviticus 5 (see below), a person who commits a minor sin can take a sin offering to the priest, confess his sins, and what? His sins are forgiven. Now, I ask you, *Who *forgave that man’s sins? God, through the holy priest. That pre-figured the priesthood of the New Covenant Church

.Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. You have a big problem. There’s nothing here that suggests a pre-figurement of the N.T. priesthood. Those people brought animal sacrifices for the priest to kill on the altar and offer it to God for various sins. That was the system God ordained for them. God was so precise, even to what clothing that the priests should wear. Being that precise, nowhere in the O.T. does God tell the priests to hear confessions. They NEVER CONFESSED THEIR SINS TO A PRIEST!

Also, you just pointed out yet another verse that “those Crazy Catholics” use to justify the dogma that we call the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You previously stated that we based in all on one verse

.Why are you calling yourself a Crazy Catholic? Since you AGREE that John 20:23 is the same as Mat 18:18 would you please explain to me what Mat 18:18 means. What is being bound?

Why, yes, they did. The Holy Spirit can (and is) given to us many, many times! Why is that hard to believe?

Would you explain how the Holy Spirit comes and goes, comes and goes, comes and goes?

I

don’t see where Matthew 27:52 says, “and thus ended the whole priesthood/altar system”. Maybe your bible says that?

Here is your PROBLEM! – Big problem at that too! – John 19:30 at the cross Jesus said, “IT IS FINISHED” and bowed His head. What is finished? The animal sacrifice system which required priests to kill the animals to offer to God. And to make sure that you understand that, in Mat 27:52 the CURTAIN that partitioned the Holy of Holies room, that only the High Priest could enter only annually, ripped from top to bottom. Jesus is now our High Priest in heaven. His sacrifice was a ONCE for ALL time. Do you begin to see the Light? No more animals to kill, no more priests are needed. – Heb10:19-20, states,” Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the CURTAIN, that is, His body and since we have a Great High Priest (Jesus) over the house of God, let us draw near to God." Since we now can draw near to God, 1Peter 2:9 the first Pope states,” But you are a chosen people, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD---- people belonging to God." That’s ME! Hallelujah! Paul states in 1 Cor 12:28, And in the church God has appointed,—apostles,—prohets,—teachers,—workers of miracles,— those with gifts of healing,—administrators,—some speak in tongues. No priests! Ed O.

 

[Ginger2]

Hmmm…, but Matthew says that the Jews praised God for giving this power to forgive sins to MEN (in the healing of the paralytic).

In Leviticus 5 (see below), a person who commits a minor sin can take a sin offering to the priest, confess his sins, and what? His sins are forgiven. Now, I ask you, *Who *forgave that man’s sins? God, through the holy priest. That pre-figured the priesthood of the New Covenant Church.

NotWorthy,

You are totally taking these verses out of context to prove your point.

Mat 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.”
7 He rose and went home.
8 When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings.

This was Jesus who forgave the sins - not the disciples. The people considered Jesus a man, not God, and asked, “Who but God can forgive sins?” Jesus healed the paralytic to testify to his authority, and the response was to glorify God, but still not understanding Jesus himself is God incarnate.

Lev 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

There is no mention anywhere in these verses of a confession** to the priest.**
Hebrews 10:1 states: The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

We no longer need a priest to make a sin offering for us

Hebrews10:8 First he says, “Sacrifices and offerings, holocausts and sin offerings, you neither desired nor delighted in.” These are offered according to the law.
9 Then he says, “Behold, I come to do your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second.
10 By this “will,” we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

.Hi NotWorthy, thanks for your reply. You have a big problem. There’s nothing here that suggests a pre-figurement of the N.T. priesthood. Those people brought animal sacrifices for the priest to kill on the altar and offer it to God for various sins. That was the system God ordained for them. God was so precise, even to what clothing that the priests should wear. Being that precise, nowhere in the O.T. does God tell the priests to hear confessions. They NEVER CONFESSED THEIR SINS TO A PRIEST!

Oh really?!?
Read Leviticus 5 one more time, my brother.

5*** then whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess the sin he has incurred, … 9 Thus the priest shall make atonement for the sin the man committed, and it will be forgiven***.

Why are you calling yourself a Crazy Catholic? Since you AGREE that John 20:23 is the same as Mat 18:18 would you please explain to me what Mat 18:18 means. What is being bound?

I call us “Crazy Catholics” simply to keep it light-hearted. We’ve got to keep our sense of humor and remember that we are brothers in Christ. I don’t mind a few picks and prods here and there as long as you and I can keep on sharing our beliefs. BTW, I have heard the term “those Crazy Catholics” from my Christian Brothers when being asked how on earth we think a priest can forgive our sins. Most of them are unaware of Leviticus 5.

But to your point, the authority to loose and bind was understand very well in ancient Israel. It’s an authority that the leaders of ancient Judaism wielded, and wielded all too often and recklessly. Its the laws that Jesus chastises when he condemns the pharisees of taxing cumin and such, while ignoring their fathers and mothers.

Rival rabbis would often make and loose laws on the faithful in opposition to other rabbi’s. This message that Jesus gives exclusively to Peter alone and then collectively to all the Apostles would have been well understood by Peter and the Twelve.

Now, how does that authority to make and un-make laws apply in the New Testament. We see this authority first being wielded in Acts 15 when James puts the 4 Noahide Laws on the Gentiles. Later, in Galatians, we find St. Paul discussing that these restrictions had been lifted. The Apostles had bound and loosed the faithful on these Noahide Restrictions.

Many Church Fathers acknowledge that this same authority is applied to the forgiveness and remitting of sins, in conjunction with John 20.

But no, the early Church had no problem with John 20 or Matthew 18 (&16).

Would you explain how the Holy Spirit comes and goes, comes and goes, comes and goes?

First of all, do you accept that the Apostles received the Holy Spirit in John 20? Jesus clearly indicates that they did. And did the Apostles receive the Spirit at Pentecost. The text certainly indicates that they did. So we have the Apostles receiving the Holy Spirit at least twice, but I would imagine they did many, many times more.

I receive the Holy Spirit in many ways, both through the Sacraments and by other means (… “the Wind blows where it wills…”). And for a time, I am fully in God. But as I sin, especially when I commit a mortal sin, I lose the Holy Spirit. ("… some sins are deadly…"). I lose this Eternal Life that Christ has given me. That’s why I go to Confession. I receive the Holy Spirit in confession. That’s one example.

I Here is your PROBLEM! – Big problem at that too! – John 19:30 at the cross Jesus said, “IT IS FINISHED” and bowed His head. What is finished? The animal sacrifice system which required priests to kill the animals to offer to God. And to make sure that you understand that, in Mat 27:52 the CURTAIN that partitioned the Holy of Holies room, that only the High Priest could enter only annually, ripped from top to bottom. Jesus is now our High Priest in heaven. His sacrifice was a ONCE for ALL time. Do you begin to see the Light? No more animals to kill, no more priests are needed. – Heb10:19-20, states,” Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the BLOOD of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the CURTAIN, that is, His body and since we have a Great High Priest (Jesus) over the house of God, let us draw near to God." Since we now can draw near to God, 1Peter 2:9 the first Pope states,” But you are a chosen people, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD---- people belonging to God." That’s ME! Hallelujah! Paul states in 1 Cor 12:28, And in the church God has appointed,—apostles,—prohets,—teachers,—workers of miracles,— those with gifts of healing,—administrators,—some speak in tongues. No priests! Ed O.

Uh… where do you get that Jesus was specifically talking about the “priestly sacrificial system”? The early Church seemed to understand that there were priests in it. We see priests in every generation of the Church. Could they have gotten it so wrong even while the Apostles were alive. And yes, we are all priests. There are different functions of the priesthood, just as there were in the Old Testament. And yes, Christ is the High Priest. No Catholic should ever deny that! I don’t see why you thing that needs to be clarified, for I have no problem with it.

The Sacrificial System is gone - Amen! But just as Malachi mentioned, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering;”.
Every second of every day, a Catholic Priest is offering up this “pure offering” - Christ - in Jesus’ name, just as Malachi prophesied!

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy,
You are totally taking these verses out of context to prove your point.

Mat 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" --he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home.”
7 He rose and went home.
8 When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings.

This was Jesus who forgave the sins - not the disciples. The people considered Jesus a man, not God, and asked, “Who but God can forgive sins?” Jesus healed the paralytic to testify to his authority, and the response was to glorify God, but still not understanding Jesus himself is God incarnate.

First, the inspired author of Matthew shows that this authority was given to men (plural). Not to a single man. I find that quite telling.

Second, its odd that you use the text of people in opposition to God to justify why God can only forgive sins. No Catholic claims that the forgiveness brought on by the priest, in and of itself, lifts the stain of sin of a person. But Christ promises that those sins they forgive, will then be forgiven by Him. That’s how I read John 20. How do you read it?

Lev 5:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

There is no mention anywhere in these verses of a confession** to the priest.**
Hebrews 10:1 states: The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

Ginger

There is no mention? Read Levitus 5:5-10. The priest is involved in the whole process. Study ancient Israel. The practice of confessing sins to a priest is not something that Christians invented. Its something ancient Jews practiced.

But just for my edification, who were the Jews supposed to confess to in Leviticus 5?

And Hebrews 10? I don’t see the point. The shadow of the old reveals that it resembles the New. The shadow is a form of the true image. The old confession is a shadow of the New Confession, where are sins are truly forgiven and we are restored to His Covenant.

 

[Ginger2]

First, the inspired author of Matthew shows that this authority was given to men (plural). Not to a single man. I find that quite telling.

You might have a point** IF** the disciples had been given this power before this particular event. But since the power to forgive which you claim was given them, was not yet given, your argument fails.

Furthermore, the people made this statement in response to the miracle of healing, not the act of forgiving.

The most “telling” statement is made by Jesus when he says, “… that you may know that** the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins**”

Notice Jesus says “son of man” - singular!!!

There is no mention? Read Levitus 5:5-10. The priest is involved in the whole process. Study ancient Israel. The practice of confessing sins to a priest is not something that Christians invented. Its something ancient Jews practiced.

But just for my edification, who were the Jews supposed to confess to in Leviticus 5?

For Clarification, See: Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD;

Ginger