Jesus quoting the Deutero Canonicals

[elvisman]

I’m so glad you pointed this out. It is another example how important it is to approach the Scriptures from the Jewish culture of the era. The Jews would have recognized that only God can “breathe” life. Here Jesus is breathing Spritual life into them.

**EXACTLY. **
I just don’t understand how people fail to see this. Maybe they just refuse to see . . .

 

[qui_est_ce]

**EXACTLY. **
I just don’t understand how people fail to see this. Maybe they just refuse to see . . .

This is why Exegesis, the branch of theology which investigates and expresses the true sense of Sacred Scripture is so important.

The idea that the Bible interprets itself become popular during the Reformation. Within one century of the rise of the Reformation, Protestant theologian, S. Werenfels, wrote the following:

Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque,
Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua,

which may be rendered in an English paraphrase:

Men ope this book, their favourite creed in mind;
Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find

I think most people who think the Bible explains itself fall into the unscholarly error of Eisegesis is the process of interpretation to support one’s predefined position.

 

[Lampo]

But I see you are simply “glossing over” what he had to say. It is obvious he was writing about Scripture but you seem to just pass it by. Don’t you believe what he wrote?

I’m definitely not glossing over what Saint Augustine said. Despite his insistence on the symbolical explanation he does not exclude the Real Presence. In association with the words of institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in expressing belief in the Real Presence. I absolutely believe what Saint Augustine said about the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Especially these:

Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it.
(Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p. 387)

Christ was both the sacrificing Priest and the sacrificial Gift in one Person (City of God, 10, 20; Ep. cf. 98, 9; on p. 406)

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring.
(Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p. 20)

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body.
(Sermons, 234, 2; on p. 31)

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.
(Sermons, 272; on p. 32)

The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side.
(Sermo iii. 1-2; on p. 62)

The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank.
(Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p. 64)

Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven.
(Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p. 65)

 

[Old_Scholar]

Indeed …

All the ancient saints of early Christendom understood the Eucharist for what it was … a miracle transformation / transubstantiation of hosts by Christ into ALL of Himself. For those who partake with Spiritual Eyes as Augustine says “if one receives worthily … you are what you received”.

St. Ambrose and others also wrote to this effect …in late 300’s.

I suspect what O.S. found earlier by Augustine, was an early writing by him — before he came to fully appreciate the power of the sacrament. Augustine was a worldly man … and it takes a while to fully work ‘worldly ideas’ from thoughts/understanding.

Finally, the scripture for this sunday is on the Eucharist … as taken from John.

O.S. … go to Mass this weekend and witness first hand what a Catholic Mass is all about. Its not enough to just watch Pope celebrate Mass on TV or read about it in books. You must experience Catholocism … don’t just learn about it vicariously here on internet.

Thanks for the offer and suggestion but no thanks.

 

[Old_Scholar]

St Augustin is not the infallible Authority of the Catholic Church. He is not the author of Doctrine.

what were they celebrating? High tea?

We know the third cup is the "Cup of Blessing. Paul identifies this “cup of blessing” with the Eucharistic cup (1 Cor. 10:16). The Gospel writers assume their audience knows the custom, and they don’t need to go into details. What the Gospel writers DID write, everything that was significant. I marvel at their insight so early after the death of Jesus. Of course it was the HS.

Do you honestly believe EVERYTHING Jesus did was written down? Read John 21:25.

So you have to read between the lines and reach your own conclusion???

And yes I believe that everything Jesus said and did that pertains to faith and morals was written down. How else could we keep it forever?

 

[Monkey1976]

So you have to read between the lines and reach your own conclusion???

And yes I believe that everything Jesus said and did that pertains to faith and morals was written down. How else could we keep it forever?

By following the teaching of St. Paul:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.(2 Thess 2:15)

 

[Old_Scholar]

Again, you’ve managed to dance around the issue.
The issue I brought up in Matt. 18:15-18*** was to show you that the Church*** is the final authority – not the Scriptures. This is not the text that shows the necessity of confession.

---

That would be John 20:21-23 (and a few other places):
**(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” **
**And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” **

---

Notice the significance of Jesus’ breathing on the apostles. Only 2 places in Scripture does God breathe on man: When he breathed life into Adam and when he gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose – to forgive sins or to retain them. You cannot dance around this. It couldn’t have been spelled out more specifically.

---

Remember this, Old “Scholar”: The New Testament writings were born from the Church – not the other way around.****

My Bible does not say “forgive” here but “remit”. So I believe you are using an unathorized version. This meaning is not really too difficult if you understand the gospel. Christ is not giving them the power to forgive sins or to retain them. Read some of the commentaries that go into this in great detail.

The gospel “remits” sin and the gospel “retains” sin. This means that any thing that the gospel declares sin, is still a sin and the apostles are to teach that. A sin is ether retained or remitted, according to the belief and actions of the sinner.

If you act differently than the gospel tells you, then you are sinning and if you believe the gospel and do as it teaches, then you are not sinning. This is the simple meaning of those verses. You are reading much more into them than they intended.

What do the early church leaders say about these verses?

 

[Old_Scholar]

By following the teaching of St. Paul:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.(2 Thess 2:15)

That’s fine. Now give me something Paul taught that was not written down that pertains to faith or morals; or actually anything else Paul said that wasn’t written down. Surely you must have a reference for that!

 

[qui_est_ce]

So you have to read between the lines and reach your own conclusion???

No, but I have to understand Jewish culture, or at least trust the footnotes to give me some insight. I also depend that those who translate are translating faithfully. I wouldn’t trust the NWT.

And yes I believe that everything Jesus said and did that pertains to faith and morals was written down. How else could we keep it forever?

Then how do you reconcile that Paul calls the Eucharist the “Cup of Blessing” with your denial that that’s what Jesus did at the Last Supper? (1 Cor. 10:16)

I still want to know what kind of meal YOU say they were having. The Bible says it was the Passover.

Matthew 26:18-19
*18
He said, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The teacher says, “My appointed time draws near; in your house I shall celebrate the **Passover **with my disciples.”’”
19
The disciples then did as Jesus had ordered, and prepared the Passover. *

 

[qui_est_ce]

My Bible does not say “forgive” here but “remit”. So I believe you are using an unathorized version. This meaning is not really too difficult if you understand the gospel. Christ is not giving them the power to forgive sins or to retain them. Read some of the commentaries that go into this in great detail.

How do you determine an “authorized” version?

 

[Monkey1976]

That’s fine. Now give me something Paul taught that was not written down that pertains to faith or morals; or actually anything else Paul said that wasn’t written down. Surely you must have a reference for that!

The point is that the proper guide for the faith is the triad of Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium. If we interpret a passage in the Bible to read that (for example) the Eucharist is entirely symbolic, we know that interpretation is wrong because of the Traditions and the teachings of the Magisterium. If the Magisterium were to proclaim tomorrow that artificial birth control and abortion are A-OK, we would know that’s wrong because of the teachings of Tradition and Sacred Scripture. If someone claims that his faith has a tradition of Mary bearing children other than Our Lord, we know that’s wrong because of the teachings of Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium.

Something can only be true if all three elements agree.

 

[qui_est_ce]

My Bible does not say “forgive” here but “remit”. So I believe you are using an unathorized version.

John 20:23 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
23 If you **forgive **the sins of any, they are **forgiven *them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

This meaning is not really too difficult if you understand the gospel. Christ is not giving them the power to forgive sins or to retain them. Read some of the commentaries that go into this in great detail.

This is self-explanatory, But okay, here’s a commentary from the NAB forgiveness:
*
this power to forgive sins is exercised in the sacrament of penance*

Binding and Loosing:

*14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven *

You’d really have to torture this verse to make it not say what it plainly says. SHEESH, who says Catholics don’t follow the Bible literally?

 

[qui_est_ce]

That’s fine. Now give me something Paul taught that was not written down that pertains to faith or morals; or actually anything else Paul said that wasn’t written down. Surely you must have a reference for that!

During the persecutions, many writings were burned. This is why what the Early Christians practiced is so important in understanding what the Gospels taught. Extra-Biblical writings give us a clue.

 

[eagertolearn]

If you act differently than the gospel tells you, then you are sinning and if you believe the gospel and do as it teaches, then you are not sinning. This is the simple meaning of those verses. You are reading much more into them than they intended.

Old Scholar, I am interested to know if you and your friends read the same passage in the Bible, the Holy Spirit moves each of you in the way that you two disagree with each other. Now what? Who will determine that an act is sinful or not when there is disagreement?

Of all 40,000 plus Ecclesiastical communities out there which one has the real presence of the Holy Spirit?

Thank you.

ETL

 

[cfrancis]

I tried to wade through all 18 pages…alas, such was not to be.

Cal, would you please cite the passages regarding Scripture that:

1. tell us who wrote the Gospels of Matthew Mark and Luke.
2. tell us the Gospels and Acts and the epistles are actually Scripture, and therefore inspired.
   ---- for these two, you can omit 2 Tim 3:16, as the verse does not tell us what is, only that Scripture is inspired by God ----

Next, in Hebrews 11:35:
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

The women receiving back their dead is 1 Kin 17:23 and 2 Kin 4:36.
What about the women being tortured? To which OT book does the author refer here?

Finally, you’ve laid out a condition that for these books whose canonicity you doubt must be quoted by Christ and/or the Apostles as a mark of canonicity. Yet you have not answered charges that many books of the OT you accept as canon do not pass this test.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I tried to wade through all 18 pages…alas, such was not to be.

That’s because the thread got derailed

Finally, you’ve laid out a condition that for these books whose canonicity you doubt must be quoted by Christ and/or the Apostles as a mark of canonicity. Yet you have not answered charges that many books of the OT you accept as canon do not pass this test.

Yes, let’s get back to the topic. I would like to know why those books are considered as inspired although not quoted in NT. Wait, then how did the NT come into being? Did it have to be consitent with the OT?

 

[elvisman]

My Bible does not say “forgive” here but “remit”. So I believe you are using an unathorized version. This meaning is not really too difficult if you understand the gospel. Christ is not giving them the power to forgive sins or to retain them. Read some of the commentaries that go into this in great detail.

The gospel “remits” sin and the gospel “retains” sin. This means that any thing that the gospel declares sin, is still a sin and the apostles are to teach that. A sin is ether retained or remitted, according to the belief and actions of the sinner.

If you act differently than the gospel tells you, then you are sinning and if you believe the gospel and do as it teaches, then you are not sinning. This is the simple meaning of those verses. You are reading much more into them than they intended.

What do the early church leaders say about these verses?

**First of all, I have Church Authority on my side as to which versions of the Bible are true. What’s YOUR authority? Which bible version do ****YOU **use?

Secondly, to remit is to forgive. Webster’s dictionary says:
Re-mit:
To pardon; forgive: remitted their sins.

As for the Church Fathers:
**“It seemed likewise impossible for sins to be forgiven through penance; yet Christ granted even this to His Apostles, and by His Apostles it has been transmitted to the offices of priest.” AMBROSE of Milan (c. 333 - 397 AD) (Penance 2:2:12) **

"For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only." **Ambrose of Milan **(Penance 1:1 – A.D. 388)

“. . . and He established some men, those who are priests, as physicians of sins. If in this world we receive through them healing and forgiveness of sins, we shall be delivered from the judgment that is to come. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (c. 428 AD) (Catechetical Homilies 16)

– Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed”. Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can bind only the body. Whatever priests do here on earth, God will confirm in heaven, just as the master ratifies the decision of his servants. Did He not give them all the powers of heaven? Not only at the time of our regeneration [at Baptism], but even afterward they have the authority to forgive sins… ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 344 - 407 AD)

Shall I go on??

Finally, Old "Scholar" - this is by far - the weakest argument I’ve ever heard on this matter.

 

[anthony022071]

There are many but for starters, check these two:

John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.”

Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Everything was always checked against the Scriptures. If it couldn’t be proven there, it was false…

Those passages do not have to do with sola scriptura.

The scribes and Pharisees searched the scriptures,and they did not find that the scriptures testified to Jesus. Instead they contradicted Jesus from their interpretation of scripture,and they had him put to death. Jesus was infallible in his interpretation of scripture,but the scribes,who were the exegetes,and the Pharisees,were not.

The Thessalonians first received the gospel from the preaching of the apostolic Church ,and then they searched the scriptures in light of what they had been told by word of mouth.

See also posts 152 and 153.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=239852&page=11

 

[beeliner]

My Bible does not say “forgive” here but “remit”. So I believe you are using an unathorized version.

Well, I have pretty much lost track of this thread, but I checked several translations and they all say ‘forgive’, plus as another poster pointed out, ‘remit’ means the same thing.

What is more interesting, however, is the followup comment. What is an ‘unathorized [sic] version’? Unauthorized by whom? And what are the qualifications for authorization, and who determined those standards?

This could be a whole new thread, and badly needed, as this one is becoming ‘thread’-bare…

 

[qui_est_ce]

What is more interesting, however, is the followup comment. What is an ‘unathorized [sic] version’? Unauthorized by whom? And what are the qualifications for authorization, and who determined those standards?

This could be a whole new thread, and badly needed, as this one is becoming ‘thread’-bare…

Did you start one?