Protestants listen up

[1beleevr]

CW:Had to take a break in my busy day, to apolgize for the remark about you being ignorant! That is not what I am about I think I just overreacted, after hearing that word so many times in this forum! I should, because I have the Peace of Christ, be able to "turn the other cheek, as my Saviour directed me! I have been a follower of Christ for 42 years, and have attended many churches; finally finding my “niche” a few years ago, in a nondenominational church, where I have grown exponentially, enjoying the fruits of service and obedience to my God! This of course brings with it, humility, and knowledge of the Word! I have never, at any time, been drawn to convert to catholicism, nor do I have that desire now! It has been interesting to read the variety of posts from catholics, some very well written, and some that appear to be written more from emotion than research! I daily, pray(to my Holy Father), read the Word, and look for opportunities to implement Matthew 25:31-46. You seem to have found your niche, also, and I am happy for you! maybe we’ll meet on that Pearly shore!

 

[ppasa316]

Hello ppasa316,

Christ gave the Apostles, whom He had chosen and ordained, the power to forgive or retain the sins of men. Below please find the DRB, KJV and the Greek translations.

Joh 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Joh 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Joh 20:21 ειπενG2036 [G5627] SAID ουνG3767 THEREFORE αυτοιςG846 οG3588 TO THEM ιησουςG2424 JESUS παλινG3825 AGAIN, ειρηνηG1515 PEACE υμινG5213 TO YOU : καθωςG2531 AS απεσταλκενG649 [G5758] HAS SENT FORTH μεG3165 ME οG3588 THE πατηρG3962 FATHER, καγωG2504 I ALSO πεμπωG3992 [G5719] SEND υμαςG5209 YOU.
Joh 20:22 καιG2532 AND τουτοG5124 THIS ειπωνG2036 [G5631] HAVING SAID ενεφυσησενG1720 [G5656] HE BREATHED INTO “THEM”, καιG2532 AND λεγειG3004 [G5719] SAYS αυτοιςG846 TO THEM, λαβετεG2983 [G5628] RECEIVE “THE” πνευμαG4151 SPIRIT αγιονG40 HOLY :
Joh 20:23 ανG302 τινωνG5100 OF WHOMSOEVER αφητεG863 [G5632] YE MAY REMIT ταςG3588 THE αμαρτιαςG266 SINS, αφιενταιG863 [G5743] THEY ARE REMITTED αυτοιςG846 ανG302 TO THEM; τινωνG5100 OF WHOMSOEVER κρατητεG2902 [G5725] YE MAY RETAIN, κεκρατηνταιG2902 [G5769] THEY HAVE BEEN RETAINED.

Christ never gave man the authority to forgive sins. I have already given the greek litteral translation to John 20:23 “Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.” What we are proclaiming is what Christ has already proclaimed. Do you dispute what God says in MK 2:7 “Who can forgive sins but God alone”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ never gave man the authority to forgive sins. I have already given the greek litteral translation to John 20:23 “Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.” What we are proclaiming is what Christ has already proclaimed. Do you dispute what God says in MK 2:7 “Who can forgive sins but God alone”

I do not agree with your translation of John 20:23, as I have provided the Greek to English, the KJV and DRB versions of what is stated.

In Mark 2:7, it was not God that spoke those words or anyone else. In fact, I will provide the verse in it’s entirety, since you have only pulled out a portion of the verse that you feel fits your theology, and verses 6 and 8 to demonstrate who thought those words and what the response was from Christ. I’ve edited this post to add verses 9 and 10, please note 10 is repeated again, below in this post for emphasis.

Mar 2:6 And there were some of the scribes sitting there and thinking in their hearts:
Mar 2:7 Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?
Mar 2:8 Which Jesus presently knowing in his spirit that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts?
Mar 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed and walk?
Mar 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy):

You not only have to read an entire verse to get the context, you have to read the passage. To understand the passage in context, you must read the chapter. To understand a chapter in context, you must read the book. To understand the book in context, you must read the Testament it’s in. To understand the New Testament in context, you must read the Old Testament. The Old prefigures the New and the New fulfills the Old.

Do you dispute what God, the Son, said in Matthew 28:18 - 20?

**Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

Mar 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy):

Joh 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

 

[ppasa316]

I do not agree with your translation of John 20:23, as I have provided the Greek to English, the KJV and DRB versions of what is stated.

In Mark 2:7, it was not God that spoke those words or anyone else. In fact, I will provide the verse in it’s entirety, since you have only pulled out a portion of the verse that you feel fits your theology, and verses 6 and 8 to demonstrate who thought those words and what the response was from Christ. I’ve edited this post to add verses 9 and 10, please note 10 is repeated again, below in this post for emphasis.

Mar 2:6 And there were some of the scribes sitting there and thinking in their hearts:
Mar 2:7 Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?
Mar 2:8 Which Jesus presently knowing in his spirit that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts?
Mar 2:9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed and walk?
Mar 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy):

You not only have to read an entire verse to get the context, you have to read the passage. To understand the passage in context, you must read the chapter. To understand a chapter in context, you must read the book. To understand the book in context, you must read the Testament it’s in. To understand the New Testament in context, you must read the Old Testament. The Old prefigures the New and the New fulfills the Old.

Do you dispute what God, the Son, said in Matthew 28:18 - 20?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Mar 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy):

Joh 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

I totally disagree with your statements. If the apostles had the authority to forgive sins why is there not one instance in the book of acts where they forgive someone of their sins. Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, 26:18 show the apostles proclaiming Gods forgiveness of sin in their preaching. Also you don’t have to tell me about reading the whole context lol i already know that and i still stand by the statement im mk 2:7 and jn 20:23. This isn’t to fulfill my theology. Its God’s Word. The verses in mk and matt point to who. It is Christ not the disciples.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I totally disagree with your statements. If the apostles had the authority to forgive sins why is there not one instance in the book of acts where they forgive someone of their sins. Acts 5:31, 10:43, 13:38, 26:18 show the apostles proclaiming Gods forgiveness of sin in their preaching. Also you don’t have to tell me about reading the whole context lol i already know that and i still stand by the statement im mk 2:7 and jn 20:23. This isn’t to fulfill my theology. Its God’s Word. The verses in mk and matt point to who. It is Christ not the disciples.

You said, "Do you dispute what God says in MK 2:7 “Who can forgive sins but God alone.” I provided the entire verse with the surrounding verses to show in context, God did not say that. Scribes thought it and Jesus asked them, “Why think you these things in your hearts?”

It had the appearances of you pulling out PART of the verse to fit your theology, that God did not give authority to the Apostles to forgive and retain sins.

When you look at the Greek to English, King James Versions and the Douay-Rheims translations of John 20:23, it does not say what you said, which was, "“Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.”(emphasis mine) None of the versions of the Bible state, “…have already…”, as you stated.

God does forgive sins, through those He ordained to act in His place. The passage could not be any clearer about the authority given. To deny it, or provide “extras” than what is said, or provide partial verses to support your view, is not being honest in this discussion.

Did you really think the ordained men of God’s Church would have written a confession in Acts? Why do you reject Christ’s instructions on the matter over the actions written, or not written about, by the Apostles?

You have taken us back to what is and what is not in the Bible. Where is sola scriptura in scriptures? Where does the Bible promote private interpretation? Please provide scriptures to answer these questions, and expect a strong scriptural refutation.

 

[MDK]

You fail to recognize that Luther did not continue with the Tiltes given to Mary by the Catholic church such as Queen of Heaven and mediatrix. Honoring is one thing, boderline worship and blasphemy against our Lord is something totally different and horrific.

Worship of Mary would be blasphemous and horrific. However, the Catholic Church not only does not teach that, but condemns this kind of behavior. The Blessed Virgin Mary would condemn it as well, as she only desires to point people to Her Divine Son.

Protestant criticism of the Catholic doctrines is due to limitations of Protestantism alone. For instance, many Protestants will say that all prayer is worship. The truth is that all prayer is not worship, any more than saying all telephone calls are emergencies. The real problem for Protestants is that God made His Church, with Magisterium, it has Godly Tradition from the teachings of the Apostles, and also authored the Scriptures. Protestants take only our Scriptures out of proper context, and with no authority whatsoever will do violence to the proper meanings as intended by Christ and as inspired by the Holy Spirit. By definition, they start off short of the Church, and it only gets worse for them from there, unless they see the light established by God set on a hill, and swim the Tiber to get to it.

 

[Louie1983]

Louie: Dress respectfully, out of reverence for who? The priest, other parishioners? Does God not care more about the inside, than the outside?

1beleevr i’m not disagreeing with you that god cares more about our state of soul then what we dress. But are we not to reflect on the outside what we are inside (that is hopefully, a god-loving,god fearing and god respecting man), if i was coming to see you at your home i would definately make the effort to dress respectfully and act respectfully because of the rspect/love i have for you. There are many ways you can show god and someone you love/respect them. Dressing appropriately is one way.

 

[MDK]

Louie: Dress respectfully, out of reverence for who? The priest, other parishioners? Does God not care more about the inside, than the outside?

When the inside is doing well, the outside should be fine as well, which would include giving our best to God. For instance, going on we’ll know them by their fruits, the “inside” of the Pope is more pleasing to God than your distortions of His word. Do people try to focus on others’ outside appearances as a distraction because their own inside is not yet well?

 

[Louie1983]

Actually, as a child of God, and knowing Jesus as my personal Saviour, I do believe that His words apply to me,as well as they did to believers and His apostles back then! And I know all about the Pentecost, don’t need a history lesson Boy, this forum is fun!

You may not need a history lesson but you definately need a lesson in exegeting scripture.

You believe that Jesus words applied to believers and his apostles back then, that’s good.
His teachings on how to live life according to god was directed to all of us.
However you have to understand that his authority was not! it was only passed on to peter and the apostles.

Why did he repeatedly say to peter “feed my sheep” and not to everyone else. He singled out Peter here, this is more confirmation of the status of Peter as leader of the Christ’s church on earth.

 

[Louie1983]

Can you provide scripture to back up your statement. Thanks

Hi ppasa,

Sure.

God promised the holy spirit to his holy catholic church in the following scripture verses(please note i didn’t put the actual verse as i assume you would know what i’m talking about, i have put in the catholic teaching to demonstrate my point):

• Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation. How could there be such a massive shift in teaching if god promised that the gates of hell would not prevail?
• Matt. 18:17-18 -the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.
• Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.
• 1 & 2 Peter -for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Hope this helps.

 

[Louie1983]

Being a Protestant (currently anyway), I rejected the Catholic Church and her teachings mainly out of ignorance and false beliefs about the church due to gross misrepresentations of the church and her doctrine as portrayed to me by my protestant pastors, preachers and teachers. Most protestants I know hold the same misconceptions about Catholics because, like myself until very recently, they don’t know any better. It’s just what they’ve always been taught.

I was attending a Southern Baptist church until very recently. The pastor there claims to be a former Roman Catholic, yet the things he taught about the church where totally unrecognizable in relation to what the Catholic Church actually is and believes. As a result of learning about what the church actually teaches (via my own self-imposed study) and an absolute revulsion towards the blatant slandering of a body which contains about a billion our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (some of which I am not entirely convinced is not done out of maliciousness), I’m seriously considering converting to Roman Catholicism.

Brother, i’m praying for you. Hopefully our lord will lead you home.

 

[Louie1983]

Christ never gave man the authority to forgive sins. I have already given the greek litteral translation to John 20:23 “Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.” What we are proclaiming is what Christ has already proclaimed. Do you dispute what God says in MK 2:7 “Who can forgive sins but God alone”

ppasa, if your translation were true then why would our lord go through the effort of actually passing his authority on to them? telling peter “to you are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, he clearly is passing his authority onto him and the disciples. If he had already forgiven everyone’s sin then what need is there to pass on this authority?

He clearly is given the church the authority to forgive and retain sin as all sins were not in existence then (e.g IVF). He left his church to lead everyone into salvation and to keep his word “heaven and earth may pass, but my words will never pass”.

 

[ppasa316]

You said, "Do you dispute what God says in MK 2:7 “Who can forgive sins but God alone.” I provided the entire verse with the surrounding verses to show in context, God did not say that. Scribes thought it and Jesus asked them, “Why think you these things in your hearts?”

It had the appearances of you pulling out PART of the verse to fit your theology, that God did not give authority to the Apostles to forgive and retain sins.

When you look at the Greek to English, King James Versions and the Douay-Rheims translations of John 20:23, it does not say what you said, which was, "“Those whose sins you forgive have already been forgiven; those whose sins you do not forgive have not been forgiven.”(emphasis mine) None of the versions of the Bible state, “…have already…”, as you stated.

God does forgive sins, through those He ordained to act in His place. The passage could not be any clearer about the authority given. To deny it, or provide “extras” than what is said, or provide partial verses to support your view, is not being honest in this discussion.

Did you really think the ordained men of God’s Church would have written a confession in Acts? Why do you reject Christ’s instructions on the matter over the actions written, or not written about, by the Apostles?

You have taken us back to what is and what is not in the Bible. Where is sola scriptura in scriptures? Where does the Bible promote private interpretation? Please provide scriptures to answer these questions, and expect a strong scriptural refutation.

Why would the scribes even mention that God is the only one to forgive sins if ordained men could do it. Doesn’t make sense. I will continue to follow the statement that I made about mk 2:7 and Jn 20:23. If their is one mediator between God and man that being Christ why would we need a priest to confess our sins. If the veil was torn in two allowing us access to Christ why would we need a priest. Doesn’t make sense. Christ said not to add or take away from His word. The scriptures are clear. Read II Timothy 3:15-16 were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved? If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, Then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us. This is no private interpetation. Please read and study God’s Word. Please don’t add anything to His Word. What you have shown me is private interpetation. Don’t need it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why would the scribes even mention that God is the only one to forgive sins if ordained men could do it. Doesn’t make sense. I will continue to follow the statement that I made about mk 2:7 and Jn 20:23. If their is one mediator between God and man that being Christ why would we need a priest to confess our sins. If the veil was torn in two allowing us access to Christ why would we need a priest. Doesn’t make sense. Christ said not to add or take away from His word. The scriptures are clear. Read II Timothy 3:15-16 were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved? If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, Then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us. This is no private interpetation. Please read and study God’s Word. Please don’t add anything to His Word. What you have shown me is private interpetation. Don’t need it.

The scribes didn’t know Christ. Christ had told the man with palsy, “Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.” This made the scribes think, “Who can forgive sins, but God only?” That’s when Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why think you these things in your hearts?”

Mar 2:5 And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
Mar 2:6 And there were some of the scribes sitting there and thinking in their hearts:
Mar 2:7 Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?
Mar 2:8 Which Jesus presently knowing in his spirit that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts?

There is only ONE mediator between man and God and that’s Jesus. But Jesus had all power given Him and He ordained men of His Church, the Apostles and gave them authority to act in His absence, as He knew what was going to happen.

Priests are of the Apostolic succession.

I’m sorry again, but 2 Timothy does NOT say scriptures are sufficient.

**DRB
2Ti 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

KJV
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

IGNT
2Ti 3:15 καιG2532 AND οτιG3754 THAT αποG575 FROM βρεφουςG1025 A BABE ταG3588 THE ιεραG2413 SACRED γραμματαG1121 LETTERS οιδαςG1492 [G5758] THOU HAST KNOWN, ταG3588 WHICH “ARE” δυναμεναG1410 [G5740] ABLE σεG4571 THEE σοφισαιG4679 [G5658] TO MAKE WISE ειςG1519 TO σωτηριανG4991 SALVATION, διαG1223 THROUGH πιστεωςG4102 FAITH τηςG3588 WHICH “IS” ενG1722 IN χριστωG5547 CHRIST ιησουG2424 JESUS.
2Ti 3:16 πασαG3956 EVERY γραφηG1124 SCRIPTURE “IS” θεοπνευστοςG2315 GOD INSPIRED καιG2532 AND ωφελιμοςG5624 PROFITABLE προςG4314 FOR διδασκαλιανG1319 TEACHING, προςG4314 FOR ελεγχονG1650 CONVICTION, προςG4314 FOR επανορθωσινG1882 CORRECTION, προςG4314 FOR παιδειανG3809 DISCIPLINE τηνG3588 WHICH “IS” ενG1722 IN δικαιοσυνηG1343 RIGHTEOUSNESS;**

The Greek word used was “ōphelimos”. It meant “profitable” or “useful”, both of which are short of being sufficient.

G5624
ὠφέλιμος
ōphelimos
o-fel’-ee-mos
From a form of G3786; helpful or serviceable, that is, advantageous: - profit (-able).

Why would Christ send offenses to the Church, if scriptures were the sole authority?

Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Why would the God inspired Word say the Church of the living God was the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures if they were the sole authority?

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Why would the inspired Word of God say that the manifold wisdom of God could be made known through the Church, instead of scriptures if scriptures were the sole authority?

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church

St. Peter tells us the dangers of private interpretation.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Friend, if you read this post and the scriptures provided, you can see the Church’s interpretation and they speak clearly. I am not trying to be offensive, but you are the one with a private interpretation, as I’ve demonstrated through several posts.

 

[MDK]

Why would the scribes even mention that God is the only one to forgive sins if ordained men could do it…

That is not what Prodigal said. God is the One who can forgive sins. God is also the only One to build His true Church, with the office of Peter as visible head. Christ is the High Priest. At the mass, the ministerial priests act in persona Christi (in the person of Christ),while the High Priest (Christ) is the one who performs His Sacraments. Christ is also the Perfect Sacrifice. Rest assured, God is right there with the priests, actually doing the consecrating as the High Priest. It is the same in the confessional, with Christ doing the forgiveness. Christ did delegate this authority, however, when He told His Apostles whose sins they forgave are forgiven, and whose sins they retain are retained. So, their participation is done not only with the permission, but the literal instruction of God.

In the OT, do you recall that there was a High priest, ministerial priests, and common priesthood? The OT is the NT concealed, and the NT is the Old revealed… and so in the New Covenant Church, there is the High Priest (Jesus), a ministerial priesthood (that you are complaining about), and the common priesthood. If we opposed a ministerial priesthood, we would oppose what God has established.

Christ healed while on the earth, and so by your logic, why would mortal man be able to participate in that healing ministry as a physician for instance? If you go to a doctor, are you being a hypocrite?

God creates His children, but the husband and wife participate in this creative process.

Only the willfully blind would not see how man participates with God in His Kingdom. This participation is from the Will of God.

There are others who will try to deny the authority established by God, and / or usurp it for themselves. This is done by their own free will, but not by the ordained Will of God. For your own sake, please stop denying what God established, and please stop usurping an authority that doesn’t belong to you.

 

[MDK]

… What you have shown me is private interpetation. Don’t need it.

Behavioral self projection alert!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why would the scribes even mention that God is the only one to forgive sins if ordained men could do it. Doesn’t make sense. I will continue to follow the statement that I made about mk 2:7 and Jn 20:23. If their is one mediator between God and man that being Christ why would we need a priest to confess our sins. If the veil was torn in two allowing us access to Christ why would we need a priest. Doesn’t make sense. Christ said not to add or take away from His word. The scriptures are clear. Read II Timothy 3:15-16 were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved? If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy, Then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us. This is no private interpetation. Please read and study God’s Word. Please don’t add anything to His Word. What you have shown me is private interpetation. Don’t need it.

I wanted to continue our Bible study to show you that even in the Old Testament, there was an authority necessary to explain scriptures to people so they could understand.

**Nehemiah 8

1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**

Let’s not forget the example in Acts 8.

**Act 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert.
Act 8:27 And rising up, he went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.
Act 8:28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the prophet.
Act 8:29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot.
Act 8:30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
Act 8:31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Act 8:32 And the place of the scripture which he was reading was this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb without voice before his shearer, so openeth he not his mouth.
Act 8:33 In humility his judgment was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for his life shall be taken from the earth?
Act 8:34 And the eunuch answering Philip, said: I beseech thee, of whom doth the prophet speak this? Of himself, or of some other man?
Act 8:35 Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said: See, here is water: What doth hinder me from being baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.
Act 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip: and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing. **

The eunuch could not understand the scriptures he read, until Philip preached Jesus to him. The eunuch believed with all his heart and was baptized and went on his way rejoicing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then aren’t the scriptures alone sufficient for us.

The New Testament has examples of things that could have only been learned through the oral tradition.

When Christ spoke of the chair of Moses, He did not explain what the chair was. It’s apparent the crowd knew what He was speaking about as the Chair of Moses is not mentioned anywhere else in scriptures.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Another example of oral tradition is found in the writings of St. Luke. Remember, St. Paul nor St. Luke were eye witnesses of Christ, yet he wrote words Christ spoke, that were not written anywhere else in scriptures. (Also think about this, St. Luke nor St. Mark were eye witnesses to Christ, yet they wrote two Gospels, they wrote what they heard through oral tradtion.)

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.

St. Paul also wrote about Jannes and Mambres, the two magicians for Pharoah. Remember, Moses’ staff, turned into a snake, ate their staffs turned into snakes. Jannes and Mambres are not written about anywhere in scriptures. The only way St. Paul could have known their names, was through oral tradition.

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.

St. Paul also wrote about the rock that followed the Israelites, during the Exodus led by Moses. The rock that followed them, is not written about anywhere else in scriptures.

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)

 

[MDK]

…The scriptures are clear…

inspired Catholic author Peter:

…when speaking about Paul’s epistles as recorded in 2 Peter 3:16 “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Who to believe… ppasa316, or inspired NT writer and Head Bishop of the Catholic Church, St. Peter??? Hmmmm.

Just FYI… sticking with Peter and God’s one true Church.

What you have shown me is private interpetation. Don’t need it.

Actually you don’t need private interpretation, because you’re overflowing with it already. Luckily, that’s not what Prodigal provided. What was provided to you was solid and correct. No wonder you reject St. Peter’s admonition, and also reject other truth when provided… as these would interfere with the authority you’ve usurped in acting in the place of the final interpreter of the written word of God. Please come to the truth, which will set you free of the slavery to these man made falsehoods.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Read II Timothy 3:15-16 were the scriptures alone sufficient in providing Timothy what he needed to know to be saved? If the scriptures alone were sufficient for Timothy,

When that letter was written to Timothy, there was only an Old Testament. The New Testament is made up of letters and epistles that were written around 60AD, with the exception of Revelations, which was written around 100AD. Then it was a few more hundred years before all those letters and epistles were brought together and the canon (the books that would be included in the New Testament) was defined. That in itself takes away from the New Testament being the sole authority. What I mean is, the New Testament didn’t give us a list of books that should have been included in the New Testament. That decision was made by the Church Christ built.

Below, please find the history of the Bible and how it came to be.

**Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. **

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

I know I have posted a lot of information, but I ask that you please take time to read all the posts that I have responded to your post with, most of it is scriptures. I have many more scriptures to support the tradition plus the Bible. Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition, just as private interpretation is.

I apologize for the length of my response(s), but I tried to warn you to expect a lot of scriptural refutation of those beliefs I believe are man-made.

Brother, I know you’re taking a tone with me about reading scriptures, but you’re the one with the private interpretation and I hope you can tell from my response, I do read and study the scriptures.