Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[tmac1956]

Let’s take a close look at this verse** Luke 23:43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.** Now, you know or maybe you don’t know that neither Greek nor Hebrew has any punctuation. Now consider these vs.** Jn20:1The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. And 15Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.** Now, Mary sees Jesus on the third day after His crucifiction and He says that He had not yet raised to His Father. So, it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been in heaven with the theif on the cross on the day He died because He did not return to heaven until two days later. Ok, so what **does **Luke 23:43 say. As I have stated there is no punctuation in Greek. The language of the NT. This was put in when the bible was translated. They did the best job the could, but once in awhile they got it wrong. This is one of those times. The comma in Luke 23:43 should be after today instead of before. You can see how that would change the meaning of the v. Instead of promising the thief that He would be with Him on that same day. He was promising him right now, when you see me bleeding and dying a shameful death, that in this state of disrepair, I promise you that one day you will be with me in Paradise.

Nice. You just took the scriptural text “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” and through tourtured logic, spit, and a dream you tinkered it into “…I promise you that one day you will be with me in Paradise” Come on now.

 

[avflf]

The epistles were written to expand on and elaborate on the four Gospels. I discerned this by reading both.

On a point of order, Richard, the Epistles were written before the Gospels. The Gospels came about because late first century believers wanted to know more about the human life of the Christ. It seems that Mark was written first then Matthew, Luke appeared and John came out around the end of the Century.

 

[guanophore]

This statement seems to contradict what the bible says.

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Whose flesh did Jesus come in the likeness of? Wasn’t it Mary’s flesh?

Yes, He took His flesh from hers. It was the “likeness” of sinful flesh, looked and acted like normal human flesh, but without sin.

 

[guanophore]

There are many instances in the Apocrapha that contradict the bible. This is “fact” whether you choose to believe it or not. Your saying that I appear ignorant is rude and not at all appreciated I suggest you review the rules of conduct on this forum and follow them.

The books in question are called Deuterocanonical, not “apocryphal”. Apocryphal books were never part of the canon, as the Deuterocanonicals have been since the formation of the Holy Bible by the Catholic Church in 382.

I am sorry that you are not able to accept feedback from the other members of the forum about how you come across.

I have reviewed the rules of conduct, and have observed that you have violated several of them.

The epistles were written to expand on and elaborate on the four Gospels. I discerned this by reading both. What makes you think that this is not true?

Because most of the epistles were written before the four gospels. and are primarily addressed to specific concerns in specific areas.

Tell you what. I’ll quite calling your churches’ doctrine baloney, if you quite calling me (or anyone else) ignorant. Then we can both stop being rude.

I can certainly work on this. There are other ways perhaps to point out your grievous lack of knowledge of our faith.

  Mark7:7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'** 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." (NIV translation)**

Apparently you have confused the Sacred Traditions given to us by the Apostles for “traditions of men”. This is an error. The Sacred Tradition is as much the Word of God as the written.
Richard Kastner;5442423:

And I beleive this is pretty much what I said above. Your misunderstanding of what I am saying is not a little bit irritating, especially when you accuse me of being wrong and then you agree with me.

I think you were irritated before you ever ready any of my posts. It think you came here that way. However, you are correct, and we are in agreement to some extent. The Scriptures are not intended to teach science, but religion.

By ourselves we cannot know God’s word but though the power of His Spirit we can.

WE are in agreement on this point also, except that I think you believe that the HS illuminates every person individually, and I think the HS illuminates us in unity with one another.

Jn 14:26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This is a promise that Jesus made to the Church. It does not apply to those who have separated themselves from the Church He founded.

Again you misunderstand. What I said was the corruption of man’s mind is filtered out by God and that is what makes the words that man wrote down, the (name removed by moderator)ired word of God.

Ok. Thank you for clarifying that.

I don’t understand the reason for this post. Is this some sort of a cheap shot. Now who is being rude.

It was a reference to your strange doctrines about the dead. However, I think we should drop it, since it is off the thread topic.

 

[guanophore]

Nice. You just took the scriptural text “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” and through tourtured logic, spit, and a dream you tinkered it into “…I promise you that one day you will be with me in Paradise” Come on now.

I don’t think his logic is tortured on this point (though I do see that it frequently is, such as in the matter of mortal and venial sins). However, we may also be misunderstanding the meaning of the word “paradise”. Jesus could be referring to “Abraham’s Bosom” where He was to go to preach to the souls of the righteous dead in captivity until heaven should be opened. Whatever “paradise” refers to, if the thief was to go there that day, it is not heaven, as Jesus had not yet been resurrected, and the gates of heaven were still closed.

One of the most sensible renderings of the Gk. is “I tell you today, you shall be with me in paradise”. It does not say WHEN! The thief’s soul may be one of those that was raised at Jesus’ resurrection.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Mr. Richard, why do you so persistently and so constantly say “beleive” instead of “believe”? I am just curious.

placido

Mia culpa, Ok, you don’t have to yell. I will repent of my wicked ways.

 

[bicolmonk]

And St. Paul told Timothy in KJV 1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (Then Timothy can save others too!)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Whose flesh? Why,* human *flesh of course! Jesus came in the “likeness” or “appearance” of sinful flesh, but, of course, had no sin.

That is, His flesh only “resembled” sinful flesh

like·ness (lkns)
n.

1. The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.
2. An i**mitative **appearance; a semblance.
3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image.

Yea, I get that Jesus is sinless. To my question “Whose flesh did Jesus come in the likeness of” You say human flesh. Let’s get specific here. Who was the human that Jesus came in the likeness of. It wasn’t Joseph’s flesh because he was no relation. It wasn’t the Father because He is sinless and is a spirit (not flesh) It was Mary’s flesh Right? Jesus came in the likeness of Mary’s sinful flesh.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Where is this in your Bible, Richard?

It would seem that this is a man-made tradition you’ve been taught, for it’s a belief that is no where in Scripture!

Isaiah 28: 10For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

By the way it’s in your bible also.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Mea culpa! * I thought* it was resolved. What don’t you understand still, Richard?

I don’t understand your question.

What is meant by “the argument is simply about semantics” is that both sides agree and are arguing about essentially…NOTHING!

I don’t think we agree at all, and it’s not just a matter of semantics.

Where does it say that the Blessed Mother sinned? Chapter and verse, please.

This is a ridiculas question if you’re going to use my inability to show in the bible where it says that Mary sinned as proof that she did not sin, then we could say that half the people in the bible were without sin.

This verse: Romans 5:Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for **that all have sinned:**would seem to indicate that Jesus himself sinned, too, and we all know that this is not the case! Why would it not also have another exclusion…Our Lady?

The fact is that Jesus is exempted from sin because He is the Son of God and it says He is without sin in the WORD OF GOD. Hebrews 4:14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Is there any verse that says Mary is without sin. NO!!!

Well, if someone has eternal life, where else would they go? Maybe Purgatory?

They are given eternal life only after the resurrection. Purgatory doesn’t exist.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Yes, Christ would live forever if He was not put to death.

Amen.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard, you know as much as I know that in the Old Testament it was “an eye for an eye”, but in the New Testament it is about turning the other cheek. Not that God was wrong or that He changed his mind. That was His divine plan of eventually leading us to the truth in Jesus Christ. Or, do you still believe in “an eye for an eye”?

It doesn’t really matter what I beleive does it?

Lev. 2417And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
8And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Here is Lev. 24:17-20 So, you are saying that these laws have been abrogated. That God did in fact change His mind. The fact is that these laws have not been changed at all. But man has thought to change them. These in no way contradict Jesus’ teaching of turn the other cheek. You will notice that in the Leviticus passage, the punishments are meted not by the individual but by the govenment (at that time the judges). These laws are still intact, its just that sinful man has chosen not to use them.

Those statements are true, but we must not forget that in the fullness of time God sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, who taught us that whoever believe in Him will not die.

placido

Again I ask you. How do you reconcile God’s statement 17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, with eternal life?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Nice. You just took the scriptural text “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” and through tourtured logic, spit, and a dream you tinkered it into “…I promise you that one day you will be with me in Paradise” Come on now.

How do you figure this is tortured logic? Scripture clearly shows that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been in heaven with the thief on the cross on the day he died because
#1 they died on different days and
#2 Jesus Himself says that He had not yet assended to the Father on the third day after His death
Now, you don’t need to believe me, but you probably should believe the clear word of God.

 

[guanophore]

Sacred Scripture disagrees with you. What traditions taught you this error ?

Trace your church through history for us. Who are your forebears ?

Why did they hide out in caves for many centuries … leaving the Catholic Church to produce all the martyrs and great saints ?

Richard claims to be an elder in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. This means that he believes the Catholic Church is apostate, and that his spiritual forebears are the tiny hidden remnant of the true believers descended from the Apostles.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

On a point of order, Richard, the Epistles were written before the Gospels. The Gospels came about because late first century believers wanted to know more about the human life of the Christ. It seems that Mark was written first then Matthew, Luke appeared and John came out around the end of the Century.

It doesn’t matter which came first. The Gospels are just that. The good news of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. The epistles merely expanded on this theme.

 

[AwGusTeen]

How do you figure this is tortured logic? Scripture clearly shows that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have been in heaven with the thief on the cross on the day he died because
#1 they died on different days and
#2 Jesus Himself says that He had not yet assended to the Father on the third day after His death
Now, you don’t need to believe me, but you probably should believe the clear word of God.

Amen. And the clear Word of God shows that Jesus said to the good thief “…TODAY you will be with me in paradise.” As a Protestant, don’t you believe in the inerrancy of scripture? Semantics aside… Have you not heard of the eternal now? It kind of renders your arguments as moot.

 

[SHW]

placido: I don’t believe that James 5:14-16, compels or obligates us to confess our sins to a priest! In fact I believe that the verse says,"Confess your sins to EACH OTHER! Also, 1John 1:9, gives us the option to take confession of sins to HIM. I know that James 5:14 says, “Call the elders from the church to PRAY over you, and you will be healed.” So, thanks to Jesus, I can enter the throneroom of grace(Hebrews 4:16) and confess my sins to Him, and He is faithful to forgive:thumbsup:

Actually “elder” is another word for “priest.” Elder is “presbuterouV” in Greek (presbytero in Latin) which is where we get the English word “priest” from. “Elder” also means “Father” and this is how the word is used for the priesthood of the New Covenant and why we call a priest “Father.”

So, yes, confessing our sins to each other helps keep us accountable, but this does not remit our sins. Scripture states that Jesus takes our sins away through the ministry of His priests/bishops:

John 20:22-23
And when He had said this, He breathed on them (apostles (bishops/priests) only, not deacons nor laypersons), and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

All bishops are priests, but only a few priests are also bishops. We confess our sins to Jesus through His priests; it does not state that we should take our sins directly to Him.

 

[freedomwriter]

Actually “elder” is another word for “priest.” Elder is “presbuterouV” in Greek (presbytero in Latin) which is where we get the English word “priest” from. “Elder” also means “Father” and this is how the word is used for the priesthood of the New Covenant and why we call a priest “Father.”

So, yes, confessing our sins to each other helps keep us accountable, but this does not remit our sins. Scripture states that Jesus takes our sins away through the ministry of His priests/bishops:

John 20:22-23
And when He had said this, He breathed on them (apostles (bishops/priests) only, not deacons nor laypersons), and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

All bishops are priests, but only a few priests are also bishops. We confess our sins to Jesus through His priests; it does not state that we should take our sins directly to Him.

John 20:22-23 Is just a proclamation of what Christ has already done. No need to confess your sins to a priest.

 

[BRB1]

I didn’t know BRB1 had such clout.

?

All Catholics have Clout

I understand you are SDA … who desires to join with those who have Clout

 

[SHW]

John 20:22-23 Is just a proclamation of what Christ has already done. No need to confess your sins to a priest.

Why do you call yourself Catholic? Confessing mortal sins to a priest is mandatory in the Catholic religion unless you are in danger of death, but if you live, then after the danger is over, you must still confess to a priest or God will not honor your previous confession. These are His rules, not ours.