G
Ginger2
Guest
Yes, that is unfortunate for you.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ginger-Yes, I referenced someone else’s comment and discovered I agree with rinnie on this one point. From there you brought me into a debate.
I was all set to acknowledge you showed me something I hadn’t seen before and I was going to humbly thank you for doing so…
But then I went to verify your claim and discovered it wasn’t true. Just another mistranslation used by Catholics to promote your beliefs.
Ginger
I provided you with at least five Protestant translations.
This is not simply a “Catholic” mistranslation.
Since you do not attend a church and have no denominational affiliation, are you unaware of the fact that Bible translations are considered to be “Protestant” or “Catholic” depending upon the make-up of the team that does the work?
So, when I quote Protestant scholars and translations, it it evidence that the interpretation that I have given is universally accepted. If it were not so, then you can bet that the Protestants would have endeavored to minimize the Catholic overtones of the passages in question.
Make sense?
L
Luke65
Guest
Because you’ve got the wrong Philip, dear Ginger. The apostle Philip had full authority to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation on the Samaritans (a sacrament that Simon the sorcerer was willing to pay for, but you deny the power of). But this Philip did not have the authority to confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, so who is he? Well, if you back go back 2 chapters you’ll find the answer.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Okay. I’ll try to work with you on this.
What translation of the Bible do you read most regularly?
Then why did you ask me to show you where anyone Apostle was called “Father” in the NT? (I began by pointing out that Paul called himself a Father to the Corinthians, remember?)
You challenge the Catholic position then claim that you have no problem with it.
Whatever.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Okay, Ginger.
New question: Does doctrine matter or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable in the Church?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Let’s be precise, okay?
The Church is the body of Christ.
Are you a member of the Body of Christ, the Church, or not?
G
Ginger2
Guest
It is universally accepted that
- Flawed human beings are doing their best (in most cases) to translate one language into another that often doesn’t have an exact equivalent. A source language that follows different rules of grammar than the target language. etc.
- That some people will endeaver to change the written Word of God to suit their own desires and try to mislead unsuspecting Christians
- because of #1 and #2 most Pastor that I know recommend praying before and after reading and cross references Bible versions to help discern the correct translation
- DRB has been revised because of mistranslations. So go on and criticize non-Catholic Bibles, but yours are no better. You suffer the same problems
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, when you denied that Jesus, James, Paul and Stephen were using the term “father” in a spiritual sense, you were teaching sound doctrine?
When you denied that John 3:36 teaches that we must “obey” Jesus, you were teaching sound doctrine?
G
Ginger2
Guest
You’ve misunderstood. My point was this Philip was a disciple of the Apostles who obviously had been given the gifts but could not pass them on.
Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.
Some time after being Baptized and receiving the holy Spirit, the Apostles laid hands on Philip and the others and they received the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
But they could not pass these gifts on - no succession.
Ginger
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But I have not argued that Protestant translations are flawed. You have!
I have pointed out that both Catholic and Protestant scholars agree with one another on the proper translation of the Greek words and phrases in question.
Not surprisingly, they do not agree with you.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Why do you twist things so?
I acknowledged we must obey God/Jesus
And I informed you the verse you quoted did not contain the word “obey”. If you want to prove “obey” you can quote any of the other verses that actually use that word. And I’m certain no one here will disagree with you.
But we were talking salvation and you used a verse that doesn’t say obey to prove one must obey to be saved. That makes no sense.
Should I send my sister a spaghetti sauce recipe if she wants to make tomato juice?
Obeying is something we do because we are saved, not to become saved. I quoted Scriptures that are clear and you insist on making it sound like I don’t think we need to obey Jesus. For shame.
Ginger
L
Luke65
Guest
No, you misunderstand. Philip was not a bishop, he was a presbyter, that is a priest, or a deacon. Priests and deacons cannot confer the Sacrament of Confirmation, only bishops can (unless a bishop gives a priest a dispensation to do so). When you believe the traditions that have been handed down to us, then you will understand the Sacred Scriptures.You’ve misunderstood. My point was this Philip was a disciple of the Apostles who obviously had been given the gifts but could not pass them on.
Ginger
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Philip, like Stephen, was a deacon; he was not an Apostle nor a Bishop.You’ve misunderstood. My point was this Philip was a disciple of the Apostles who obviously had been given the gifts but could not pass them on.
Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid [their] hands on them.
Some time after being Baptized and receiving the holy Spirit, the Apostles laid hands on Philip and the others and they received the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
But they could not pass these gifts on - no succession.
Ginger
Only Bishops have the fullness of the priesthood; priests and deacons do not. For example, only Bishops may ordain bishops, priests or deacons. Priests may not ordain other priests. Priests may say mass, hear confessions, perform weddings and other sacraments, and they may confirm if they are given such faculties by their Bishops. However, no priest may ordain. Period.
We do not know from scripture that Philip did or did not have such authority; however, the fact that the Apostles performed the confirmations suggests that he did not.
Succession would pass through the laying on of hands from Apostles to Bishops while the Apostles were still alive, and then from Bishop to Bishop later.
Philips inability to confirm the Samaritans may speak about gift of the Holy Spirit (imparted normatively at confirmation) but it says nothing whatsoever with regard to Apostolic Succession.
G
Ginger2
Guest
Of course not! You are using these flawed translations to support your erroneous beliefs.
G
Ginger2
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, Ginger. This is not how it unfolded.
In post #621, you wrote:
"Since there is only one version I know of that says “obey” I assumed you chose it intentionally. **Was I wrong that **you intentionally chose a version that was mistranslated to prove your point?"
First, you claimed to know of only one translation that used the word “obey”; I provided seven as well as the Greek needed to see that the word “obey” is correct.
Second, you claimed that this one “mistranslated” version was being used to prove a point. Again, I pointed out that the point concerning salvation was not being made by the deceptive use of a poor translation; rather, the point is buttressed by numerous translations many of which were produced by non-Catholics.
So, not only are you wrong about the word “obey” being incorrectly translated in John 3:36, but you fail to understand the implications of the verse which undermine the false doctrine of salvation by faith alone.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ginger-
Since the translations that I provided are representative of the finest Protestant and Catholic scholarship available (and not twisted versions such as the New World Translation), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that these versions of the Bible are flawed.
Please present your opening argument.
L
Luke65
Guest
That’s it? Okay then, let’s go back…
Warning: I am about to quote Scripture, so please remove your blinders.You’ve misunderstood. My point was this Philip was a disciple of the Apostles who obviously had been given the gifts but could not pass them on.
“Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there… when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:5,12)
So you see, Ginger, Philip did have the authority to pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit called the Sacrament of Baptism, but he did not have the authority to pass on the gift of the Holy Spirit called the Sacrament of Confirmation. And what was true 2000 years ago is still true today in the Church of Christ - the Catholic Church.
J
JohnnyBeth
Guest
Please elaborate on the difference; I’ll get the popcorn and wait. How are they protected? Does it mean they can’t error? or is the error covered up? or something different?
A synonym would be inerrant; Without error.
Sounds like you may be saying the Catholic church can error but not be judged for the error. Is this correct. Anyway elaborate some more.
Infallible, which is what God is; is defined: Without fault or weakness; ***incapable of error or fallacy. *** Not part of His nature. Yet the definition above is not infallibility as it is rightly defined.
J
JohnnyBeth
Guest
No, you are guilty of using a single piece of Scripture to define an entire religious office that did not come about until several centuries after Christ died on the cross and is no where in Scripture. That’s the facts Jack…sorry been watching too much Bill Murray
The Bible calles to “lording” over the members for purposes of control. Hey it works very well; doesn’t matter though, God knows me.Did you look at the names and see the reference to the “Father giving to the Son” as opposed to Jesus to Peter. What is the reality? “all the Father gives to Me; I lose none and raise them up in the last day”
Hilkiah = “my portion is Jehovah” "My part is Jehovah or the “existing One” Who is the existing one? the Father.
Eliakim = “God raises” God raised who? Jesus!
You will find the former all over the NT, but not the latter; only in Catholicism. Don’t you think that Jesus would make it crystal clear in no uncertain terms…use the grey matter. Same with the priesthood; don’t you think Jesus would have made it clear; any resemblence to the Catholic priesthood in Scripture? No. Hebrews puts any such notion to bed for good. Each member is a holy race and royal priesthood of believers with Jesus as our High Priest. That was made crystal clear wasn’t it…grey matter matters.
I’ll bet you have been a professing Christian longer than Ginger and I put together; yet you do not comprehend the bible as we see it.
Not your fault; just the way it is.
- Status