“changed”?
Is it not possible though that a minister who has his own family might be in a better position to counsel people with respect to marital situations or intergenerational problems?
He didn’t; He fulfilled it. We are under a New Covenant, now.
That’s what I want to know.
How far do you extend that? Do I have to be a recovering drug addict in order to counsel drug addicts? Do I have to be divorced, in order to help divorced people?
Perhaps they did. It seems like a side issue, to me. There are married priests - very few, but they are there.
Excellent point!
I’ve head that if an Episcopalian or Anglican pastor converts to Catholicism and has a wife, he is allowed to keep his wife and become a Catholic Priest.
Where in the passage does it say that Peter “retained” their sin? You say you weren’t giving an interpretation but in truth you were. You were interpreting that passage as Peter having the power of retaining or forgiving the sin of Ananias and Sapphira. Yet the passage states no such thing. Peter had knowledge of the deception between them, but we’re not told how (most likely the Holy Spirit Himself). He confronts them individually based on that knowledge, but the text does not describe Peter as exercising any power to personally forgive or retain their sin. You’re reading your doctrine into that passage (eisegeses), but you cannot in reality get that doctrinal interpretation out of that passage (exegesis).hi moondweller re; post 264. iwas not giving an interpitation of the text i posed the question were not thier sins retained.
Peter himself did not pronounce judgment on Sapphria, he merely announced it.Acts 5:9 Then Peter {said} to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out {as well.}” And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.What happened with Ananias and Sapphira was an anomaly. Their deaths were not merely a personal matter, but used as an example by the Holy Spirit for all to heed in those infant years of the church Christ was building.Acts 5:11 And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.The incident had nothing to do with Peter having power to retain or forgive sins but the Holy Spirit’s public judgment of the first sin against the community of Christ’s church. It caused all to become keenly aware of God’s omniscience and His intimate involvement in the church. Especially those who would want to make a name for themselves by deception through their own inward corruption. The incident was recorded in Scripture for the benefit of subsequent generations. Nevertheless, corruption still infiltrated the church, especially during the Middle Ages when the church mixed with the state and power and personal riches were to be gained.
Thanks SyCarl.
John 20:21-23
Read my post again. Where in THAT passage?
I know. I wasn’t trying to prove it in “that” particular package.
so then moondweller you are actually admiting that the catholic church is the church founded by Christ. according to the last two sentences in your post replying to me.LOL!
like i said in my first post the name of this thread in no way implies the conversations taking place. it is almost impossible to agrue with some the newer bible beliving christains they seem to have a very hard time admitting they could be wrong. in my short experience of living in the true faith it is almost impossible to talk faith with some one who has been rebaptized. i have a few friends who are in this catagory. yeah you are right they say but i am right too. so we go no where. why is that?