Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[LilyM]

Please get the quotes from which you speak.

With pleasure.

The scripture where Jesus breathes on the Apostles and gives them the power to forgive sins has been quoted already.

In regard to Matthias, see Acts Chapter 1:

"15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;
17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry” …

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms: …

  ‘*** Let another take his office.’***

21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us … one of these must become ***a witness with us of His resurrection.” ***
23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen
25 ***to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, ***that he might go to his own place.”
26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

I don’t think it could be much clearer. Matthias couldn’t share in the ministry of the eleven nor be numbered among them if he didn’t, like them, hold the power of forgiving sins! And just as the ministry of the eleven didn’t die with them (certainly not with Judas), but was passed on to his successor, so ALL the eleven passed on their ministry to successors.

If you make an assumption, then its not neccessarily true.

What, like your assumption that the power of the apostles to forgive sin was only a temporary measure destined to die with the men to whom it was given? Which flies in the face of the biblical evidence that their ministry and powers were intended to last and be passed on to succeeding generations?

 

[ChristianKnight]

With pleasure.

The scripture where Jesus breathes on the Apostles and gives them the power to forgive sins has been quoted already.

In regard to Matthias, see Acts Chapter 1:

"15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;
17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry” …

20 “For it is written in the Book of Psalms: …

  ‘*** Let another take his office.’***

21 “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us … one of these must become ***a witness with us of His resurrection.” ***
23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen
25 ***to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, ***that he might go to his own place.”
26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles."

I don’t think it could be much clearer. Matthias couldn’t share in the ministry of the eleven nor be numbered among them if he didn’t, like them, hold the power of forgiving sins! And just as the ministry of the eleven didn’t die with them (certainly not with Judas), but was passed on to his successor, so ALL the eleven passed on their ministry to successors.

What, like your assumption that the power of the apostles to forgive sin was only a temporary measure destined to die with the men to whom it was given? Which flies in the face of the biblical evidence that their ministry and powers were intended to last and be passed on to succeeding generations?

I stand corrected

 

[LilyM]

I stand corrected

Well, you certainly had me running to my bible to doublecheck that passage myself

 

[Ginger2]

Here is the story:

Acts 1uring those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
"My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry…

For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’

The Apostles concluded from Scripture that another should take Judas place.

Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

They wanted someone who had been with them from the beginning because he would know all that Jesus had done and would have been taught by Jesus himself.

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”

Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

The Apostles asked God to choose someone to take Judas’ place, but then told God who they thought was worthy of this position and limited God’s choice to 2 men.

So, was this God’s choice or was it mere chance?

If Matthias was God’s chosen replacement for Judas, why did Jesus personally call Saul to be an Apostle by giving him the Gospel directly.

Paul fits the requirements the eleven were looking for. Jesus taught Paul all that he had done.

Gal 1:11-12 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

That is an assumption we come to because that was the goal of the Apostles, but …
No where does the Scripture affirm God chose Matthias thru the casting of lots.
and because lots were cast in the OT - but …
the OT affirms God Himself ordered the lots be cast

Lev 16 says, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother,…And Aaron shall cast lots…”

Joshua 14 says, "By lot [was] their inheritance, as** the LORD commanded **by the hand of Moses,… "

And Paul received the same gifts as the other Apostles. Matthias is never mentioned again.

 

[LilyM]

So, was this God’s choice or was it mere chance?

Of course it was God’s choice. Every choice of successor to Peter (Pope) is made by similarly invoking God’s blessing and the Holy Spirit’s guidance in prayer and casting a ballot from among those who are most worthy to hold the postition. No different to what the Apostles did.

If Matthias was God’s chosen replacement for Judas, why did Jesus personally call Saul to be an Apostle by giving him the Gospel directly.

You’re suggesting that God let Peter and the eleven down? That He failed to listen to their prayer? Failed to indicate His choice between Matthias and Barsabbas? They certainly knew, as the Holy Spirit told them who never failed to guide them, that He HAD indicated a choice, that choice being Matthias, which is why Matthias from that moment on was fully counted as one with the eleven.

Note that Jesus did indeed call Saul to be an apostle - but that Saul chose not to do any real work until AFTER he’d sought and received the recognition, approval and blessing of the eleven. He wasn’t a renegade lone wolf, relying on his visions from Jesus and nothing and no-one else, rather he worked within the apostolic framework.

Jesus may have chosen Saul for lots of reasons. One was almost certainly to demonstrate that apostolic powers, including forgiveness of sins, WEREN’T to be considered as restricted to the eleven alone, but WERE passed on to a new generation, a post-resurrection generation who never beheld Jesus in the flesh, of leaders. In other words the opposite of what you’re trying to say!

Paul fits the requirements the eleven were looking for. Jesus taught Paul all that he had done.

How so? Paul certainly wasn’t with Jesus from the beginning. He NEVER saw Jesus in the flesh, not once. Not as the eleven and Matthias did. In fact, being that he was the most significant persecutor of Christians up until the very moment of his conversion, he would in fact have fit none of the requirements that the apostles were looking for.

Paul’s whole story goes to make our point very nicely, that succession to the office of the Apostles was never just confined to those who were present from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, or those who had followed Jesus while He was still on earth!

IF Jesus could teach Paul directly, even though Paul never saw Him in human form, then of course He can and does teach our ordained (laid hands on, as Paul himself very significantly was laid hands on) priests and bishops just as well today without THEIR seeing Him in fleshly form, no?

That is an assumption we come to because that was the goal of the Apostles, but …
No where does the Scripture affirm God chose Matthias thru the casting of lots.
and because lots were cast in the OT - but …
the OT affirms God Himself ordered the lots be cast

Lev 16 says, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother,…And Aaron shall cast lots…”

Joshua 14 says, "By lot [was] their inheritance, as** the LORD commanded **by the hand of Moses,… "

And Paul received the same gifts as the other Apostles. Matthias is never mentioned again.

Spare me. Are you really claiming that the apostles failed in their aims with Matthias? That they, commissioned by Christ and gifted by Him with the power to teach infallibly (which infallible teaching was passed on in scripture and orally) and the unfailing guidance of the Holy Spirit, made the grievous blunder of counting one among their number who God in fact never chose for them?

That’ve would be the most serious dereliction of duty on the part of the Holy Spirit and God, after they’d been specifically invoked for their guidance on the matter, no? He certainly couldn’t be trusted to have guided them in any other matter if He let them commit such a huge gaffe as wrongly claiming Matthias as one of themselves.

Matthias isn’t mentioned further. Big whoop. Neither are Jude, Simon, Bartholomew or Nathaniel, nor others of the eleven - in fact their names don’t appear in Acts at all. Does their lack of specific mention in Acts mean they somehow ceased to be apostles? Not a bit!

Neither does it mean, for Matthias, that he ever ceased to be one of them, once chosen and laid hands on.

 

[Ginger2]

Of course it was God’s choice. Every choice of successor to Peter (Pope) is made by similarly invoking God’s blessing and the Holy Spirit’s guidance in prayer and **casting a ballot from among those who are most worthy **to hold the postition. No different to what the Apostles did.

God chooses those who are deemed unworthy by men.

God chose Abraham an adulterer, Moses a stammering murderer, Jacob a cheat and a trickster. David, a mere boy,…

Even Jesus made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Phl 2:7 )

You’re suggesting that God let Peter and the eleven down? That He failed to listen to their prayer? Failed to indicate His choice between Matthias and Barsabbas? They certainly knew, as the Holy Spirit told them who never failed to guide them, …

No, I am not suggesting any such thing.

I am suggesting that God listened to their prayers and gave them a better answer then they expected by choosing Paul.

Note that Jesus did indeed call Saul to be an apostle - but that Saul chose not to do any real work until AFTER he’d sought and received the recognition, approval and blessing of the eleven. He wasn’t a renegade lone wolf, relying on his visions from Jesus and nothing and no-one else, rather he worked within the apostolic framework.

You are wrong.

Read Acts 9:10-20
There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” He answered, “Here I am, Lord.”
The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying,
and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight.” Ananias, not one of the 12 Apostles also was given power to heal, does this mean he had the power to forgive sins as you claim the 12 did?
But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem.
And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name.”
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites,
and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name."
So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.”
Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized,
and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus,
and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Jesus may have chosen Saul for lots of reasons. One was almost certainly to demonstrate that apostolic powers, including forgiveness of sins, WEREN’T to be considered as restricted to the eleven alone, but WERE passed on to a new generation, a post-resurrection generation who never beheld Jesus in the flesh, of leaders. In other words the opposite of what you’re trying to say!

I agree whatever power Jesus gave the eleven was not restricted to the eleven, not even at that time as Ananias appears to also have been given that power.

Paul certainly wasn’t with Jesus from the beginning. He NEVER saw Jesus in the flesh, not once. Not as the eleven and Matthias did. In fact, being that he was the most significant persecutor of Christians up until the very moment of his conversion, he would in fact have fit none of the requirements that the apostles were looking for.

How can you claim Saul never saw Jesus in the flesh? Saul was present, giving approval to Stephen’s stoning in the year 32 AD. (Acts 8:1 ) He was a pharisee (Phil 3:5 ) Jesus was brought before the pharisees when he was arrested.

Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus in 34 AD, where he received the Gospel directly from Jesus. (Acts 9 )

 

[Peter_J]

Here is the story:

Acts 1uring those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,
"My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus.
He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry…

For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’

The Apostles concluded from Scripture that another should take Judas place.

Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."

They wanted someone who had been with them from the beginning because he would know all that Jesus had done and would have been taught by Jesus himself.

So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”

Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

The Apostles asked God to choose someone to take Judas’ place, but then told God who they thought was worthy of this position and limited God’s choice to 2 men.

So, was this God’s choice or was it mere chance?

If Matthias was God’s chosen replacement for Judas, why did Jesus personally call Saul to be an Apostle by giving him the Gospel directly.

Paul fits the requirements the eleven were looking for. Jesus taught Paul all that he had done.

Gal 1:11-12 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

That is an assumption we come to because that was the goal of the Apostles, but …
No where does the Scripture affirm God chose Matthias thru the casting of lots.
and because lots were cast in the OT - but …
the OT affirms God Himself ordered the lots be cast

Lev 16 says, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother,…And Aaron shall cast lots…”

Joshua 14 says, "By lot [was] their inheritance, as** the LORD commanded **by the hand of Moses,… "

And Paul received the same gifts as the other Apostles. Matthias is never mentioned again.

Ginger,

I think you are using a false dichotomy.

Absolutely, St. Paul was an Apostle. (In fact, icons of the twelve Apostles include Paul. See for example, here and here.)

But Matthias also became “a witness to his resurrection” and a sharer in the Apostolic ministry. There is no contradiction there.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

Absolutely, St. Paul was an Apostle. (In fact, icons of the twelve Apostles include Paul.

But Matthias also became “a witness to his resurrection” and a sharer in the Apostolic ministry. There is no contradiction there.

Agreed.

 

[LilyM]

**
No, I am not suggesting any such thing.

I am suggesting that God listened to their prayers and gave them a better answer then they expected by choosing Paul.**

You’re suggesting nothing, you’re outright saying so, by saying that Matthias somehow was not a real Apostle, was no-one special, was NOT the answer to their prayers.

I’m glad you’ve finally realised that in fact Matthias was MEANT to be an apostle every bit as much as Paul was. Seriously, the nerve of suggesting that the Apostles didn’t know how to pray for the right thing! And didn’t recognise that what they got in Matthias wasn’t the ‘real’ answer to their prayers!

Like I said, if the Holy Spirit stuffed up on Matthias then nothing they said can be trusted.

Ananias, not one of the 12 Apostles also was given power to heal, does this mean he had the power to forgive sins as you claim the 12 did?

 

[Ginger2]

Quite possibly. If the ministry to heal was not restricted to the eleven then why the ministry to forgive sins? Ananias could very well have had one or both. He certainly had the authority to lay hands Goes to prove our point even further, that none of the apostolic ministries were restricted to the eleven.

Gee…I think that makes my point.

Paul wasn’t a native of Israel, but of Tarsus in Syria, quite a long ways away. There’s no basis to think that Paul saw Christ in Jerusalem…

And to think, all this time I’ve been under the impression that all Jews went to Jerusalem for the Passover.

 

[LilyM]

Gee…I think that makes my point.

No actually it makes ours, since you were the one denying that priests could ever possibly have the power to forgive sins, no?

Besides which, our point (that Matthias received the Apostolic authority, including the power to forgive sins, by virtue of being chosen for the office of successor to the apostles, just the same office that our priests and bishops hold) is well made and proven.

And to think, all this time I’ve been under the impression that all Jews went to Jerusalem for the Passover.

So there were a good million or more people there - and of course each and every last one of them made sure to see Jesus whilst there, just like they all made sure to all see each of the half-a-dozen false ‘messiahs’ who’d risen in Israel around the same time

 

[guanophore]

If I interpret the last supper correctly, and I know I do,

Really? How do you know that?

then it is impossible for me to believe that Jesus cut bits of flesh from his body and tap his veins to give the word REAL its real meaning.

You are in good company. the vast majority of those in Jn 6 also found it “impossible to believe” and walked away from Him.

Do you believe He gave his 'symbolic" rather than His real flesh and blood for the life of the world?

Do you believe that God, who can appear in a burning bush, without that bush being consumed, cannot be present in bread and wine if He so chooses?

We open a nasty can of worms here. If real does not mean real, did Jesus really die on the cross? Was he really here on earth to begin with? Does he really mean we will live with him some day? Since he did not cut and tap himself during this ceremony, the word real is out and must be replaced withsymbolic. That’s just the way it is, folks.

That is the way it is for you, RD, because you are in unbelief. Not so for those who chose to accept Jesus at His word.

Are you forbidden to interpret scripture on your own?

No, of course not. Why would it say we are to study, to show ourselves approved ?

According to your catechism, you may understand and interpret through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of course! Is there any other way to do it?

The words successor/succession do not appear in the bible. I use the KJV.

Actually, they do, but for the sake of discussion, the word Trinity does not appear their either, nor does the list of books that belongs in the Bible. Are you suggesting that things cannot be true unless you see them in your bible?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work
(2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Here Paul addresses the man of God, not some men of God.

Yes, and that same Apostle says that God put people in charge of that ministry of equipping the saints. Scripture is useful for the task, but does not accomplish this task on it;s own.

And the following is what he had to say to Timothy:

2 Tim 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

since Paul is speaking of the OT in this passage, I would really like to see any modern day Christian demonstrate, using the OT alone, wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ.

Paul taught Timothy how to understand the OT in the light of Christian teachings. This is the teaching of the Church which was entrusted to Timothy, as it is to all the bishops.

Therefore, the bible was written for all men to understand including children.

I agree. I think the more a person is exposed to scripture the better.

I would like to see where your church says that you are to bounce your interpretation of the bible back against it.

The Catholic Church produced the Bible. It was never intended to be separated from the Church.

Nothing was said about submitting to the church. Interpreting scripture on your own with the help of the Holy Spirit is the issue. Your church gives you permission to do so.

Yes, but we are to interpret scripture in the mindset of those who wrote it, which is not possible to learn without unity with the Church which was founded upon the Apostles and prophets.

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth

Of course, I am assuming that you are one of the faithful, have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit and understand his instructions and guidance into all truth.

Yes the annointing happens at baptism, when we are born from above by water and spirit, and sealed with the guarantee of our inheritance.

 

[Ginger2]

…since you were the one denying that priests could ever possibly have the power to forgive sins, …

… is well made and proven.

I deny priests can forgive sins the way God does and I stand by that as it says so in Scripture. Which I’ve already quoted.

So there were a good million or more people there - and of course each and every last one of them made sure to see Jesus whilst there, just like they all made sure to all see each of the half-a-dozen false ‘messiahs’ who’d risen in Israel around the same time

Sometimes you sound like you’ve never even read the Bible.

The pharisees sent their servants out to find Jesus. They pharisees often went to search for him to question him and try to trick him. The pharisees and scribes were very interested in Jesus -interest enough to plot to kill him!

Jo 12:19 the pharisees said “the whole world has gone after Jesus”

I think it highly likely Saul sought to get a look at the man that was causing so much trouble when he visited Jerusalem.

During the passover it would be hard to find your average “Joe”, but not a huge celebrity like Jesus.

Once found it might be hard for the average Jew to get close to Jesus because of the crowd, but not for “important” men like the pharisees.

The Bible says people were able to find Jesus during the passover:

John 12:On the next day, when the great crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
they took palm branches and went out to meet him, and cried out: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, (even) the king of Israel.”

As for these other 6 false prophets you claim out of the blue…if they existed, they obviously were no concern to the pharisees and scribes as Jesus is the one who was making them look bad and gaining more followers then John the Baptist.

 

[Peter_J]

I think it highly likely Saul sought to get a look at the man that was causing so much trouble when he visited Jerusalem.

Possible. (We Catholics know well that just because something isn’t record in the Scriptures doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.) But “highly likely” is quite a stretch.

Really a moot point, anyways.

 

[Peter_J]

No actually it makes ours, since you were the one denying that priests could ever possibly have the power to forgive sins, no?

That’s something I’ve been wondering about. Many Protestants believe that when Jesus said “Whose sins you forgive” etc., the “you” meant all Christians, not just the Apostles and their successors. But that doesn’t sound like what Ginger has been saying. So I guess we’ll just have to wait for an explanation from her.

 

[Ginger2]

Possible. (We Catholics know well that just because something isn’t record in the Scriptures doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.) But “highly likely” is quite a stretch.

Really a moot point, anyways.

You’re right Peter, it wasn’t highly likely, it was almost certain. Jesus was a BIG issue for the pharisees.

 

[Ginger2]

That’s something I’ve been wondering about. Many Protestants believe that when Jesus said “Whose sins you forgive” etc., the “you” meant all Christians, not just the Apostles and their successors. But that doesn’t sound like what Ginger has been saying. So I guess we’ll just have to wait for an explanation from her.

What explanation? No one has all the answers.

Even the Catholic Church leaves interpretation of Scripture that isn’t dogmatically define up to the individual. In that case they follow basically the same rule as Protestants.

As long as it doesn’t contradict Bible if it’s a Protestant/Tradition if it’s a Catholic.

I don’t claim to know for certain what John 20:23 means. I would only be guessing based on what I know about other Scriptures.

I believe whatever God says. When and if God feels I need a clear and concise understanding of the particular Scripture, He will provide such understanding at just the right time.

For the time being, what I do know is that this Scripture must be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures and must not contradict.

 

[Peter_J]

You’re right Peter, it wasn’t highly likely, it was almost certain.

Yes yes, ha ha, etc.

I don’t claim to know for certain what John 20:23 means.

Maybe not, but judging by this thread I’d say you’re pretty opinionated about it.

 

[LilyM]

I deny priests can forgive sins the way God does and I stand by that as it says so in Scripture. Which I’ve already quoted.

Sometimes you sound like you’ve never even read the Bible.

The pharisees sent their servants out to find Jesus. They pharisees often went to search for him to question him and try to trick him. The pharisees and scribes were very interested in Jesus -interest enough to plot to kill him!

Jo 12:19 the pharisees said “the whole world has gone after Jesus”

I think it highly likely Saul sought to get a look at the man that was causing so much trouble when he visited Jerusalem.

During the passover it would be hard to find your average “Joe”, but not a huge celebrity like Jesus.

Once found it might be hard for the average Jew to get close to Jesus because of the crowd, but not for “important” men like the pharisees.

The Bible says people were able to find Jesus during the passover:

John 12:On the next day, when the great crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem,
they took palm branches and went out to meet him, and cried out: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, (even) the king of Israel.”

As for these other 6 false prophets you claim out of the blue…if they existed, they obviously were no concern to the pharisees and scribes as Jesus is the one who was making them look bad and gaining more followers then John the Baptist.

Many thought John the Baptist was the Messiah. That’s just one. He too had a big following, he too was martyred within a short time of Jesus’ own death. Did all the Pharisees personally run to go see him?

Wouldn’t that be WHY they sent their servants - because most of them didn’t want to, or couldn’t, see Him personally? Why would they bother to do so if they ALL, or even many of them, were going to see Him personally anyway? Surely the many pharisees who, according to you, personally saw Jesus could report as easily as servants could to those who didn’t.

I’m so glad you think it highly likely that Saul saw Jesus. Really. The bible never mentions it, therefore by your own so-often used train of logic it can’t possibly have happened.

 

[Ginger2]

… therefore by your own so-often used train of logic it can’t possibly have happened.

Your post doesn’t even sound coherent anymore

The first part makes no sense at all, and the quote above seems to suggest you think all knowledge of of everything can be found in Scriptures.

What in the world are you talking about?