Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Isaiah45_9]

Because God’s word commands you to. It also promises that through the Office of the Holy Ministry, God’s word of forgiveness is given to you. It is not about mediation or intercession. It is Christ working through His called and ordained servants to, speaking with His command and authority, proclaim forgiveness in His name. When that happens, you are forgiven as surely as if Christ Himself said it to you.

John 20:23
James 5:16
2 Cor. 5:20
Luke 24:47

Nice, Per Crucem.

I’d like to expand on 2 Cor 5
17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

The "us’ and “we”, Paul is talking about is Ministers of Holy Orders - Priests.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Nice, Per Crucem.

I’d like to expand on 2 Cor 5
17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

The "us’ and “we”, Paul is talking about is Ministers of Holy Orders - Priests.

Is he so? Why so?

 

[Mlon]

Because God’s word commands you to. It also promises that through the Office of the Holy Ministry, God’s word of forgiveness is given to you. It is not about mediation or intercession. It is Christ working through His called and ordained servants to, speaking with His command and authority, proclaim forgiveness in His name. When that happens, you are forgiven as surely as if Christ Himself said it to you.

John 20:23
James 5:16
2 Cor. 5:20
Luke 24:47

Before I start researching your bible references to try to see things from your perspective I have a question. Your post indicates you’re Lutheran. I too was a Lutheran and we didn’t confess sins to the Priest. We would recite a prayer in mass confessing our sins as a congregation. When doing so it’s my personal sins being confessed directly from me to God. I’m a little confused by your response. Please clarify so I can better understand where you’re coming from. Thanks

 

[Per_Crucem]

Before I start researching your bible references to try to see things from your perspective I have a question. Your post indicates you’re Lutheran. I too was a Lutheran and we didn’t confess sins to the Priest. We would recite a prayer in mass confessing our sins as a congregation. When doing so it’s my personal sins being confessed directly from me to God. I’m a little confused by your response. Please clarify so I can better understand where you’re coming from. Thanks

Unfortunately, that is because American Lutheranism has adopted the practice of non-Lutheran groups here and private confession has become rare. However, since you know that you confessed your sins as a congregation in the liturgy and the presbyter gave absolution, this is the same as private confession and absolution.

bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#confession

 

[benjohnson]

Using your paradigm, Honorius, do we then get to exclude this Gospel narrative for its scientific inaccuracy?

Not to speak for Honorius. I would say defiantly not - it’s a parable, or a story so we can suspend our disbelief to hear the message of the story.

Frankly the parable itself reminds me of the Big Bang theory - where the universe exploded into existence from an infinitely small beginning.

 

[benjohnson]

I too was a Lutheran and we didn’t confess sins to the Priest.

I see you’ve already been answered, but let me add that sadly many churches with the word Lutheran have forgone the Confessions.

“Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession an enumeration of all sins is not necessary.” —Augsburg Confession, Article 11

 

[Contarini]

Tacitus, Seutonius, and Dio Cassius wrote of it on the Roman side; also see the Acts of Augustus.

See H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 246: “When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in 6 CE, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea.”; page 274: “Josephus connects the beginnings of the extremist movement with the census held under the supervision of Quirinius, the legate of Syria, soon after Judea had been converted into a Roman province (6 CE).”

The Jewish historian Josephus also records the event. See Emil Schürer, Fergus Millar (editor), Geza Vermes (editor), The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ Vol I, (Continuum, 1973), page 424: “It was started … in the earliest in the summer of C.E. 6.” and completed “at the latest in the autumn of C.E. 7”

Right. And this contradicts Matthew, which says that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive.

The only way out is to posit that Quirinius had some other position in Syria earlier than our other sources record; that this position could fairly be called “governor of Syria” by Luke, even though we know he wasn’t the legate of Syria during the reign of Herod the Great; and that at this earlier time there was an otherwise unrecorded census.

Quite a few stretches there. And there are many other places in the undisputed, canonical Scriptures where similar agility is necessary:

The claim in 2 Samuel 21:19 that Elhanan killed Goliath, which contradicts both 1 Samuel 17 and 1 Chron. 20:5 (which appears to be an attempt to harmonize the two earlier accounts, though conservative scholars argue that it’s the correct account and that there’s been a textual error in 2 Samuel)

The contradiction between the genealogies of Joseph in Matthew and Luke

The claim in Daniel (perhaps implicit also in Ezra) that Darius was the Persian king who captured Babylon

And so on.

Not saying that there are no possible reconciliations of these passages. Only that we wouldn’t bother reconciling them if they weren’t canonical Scripture, and that if a conservative Christian was disposed to reject the books in question these passages would be cited as evidence that the books are inaccurate and thus not inspired.

The same is true, it seems to me, for your other objections. If the account of people being healed by handkerchiefs that had touched Paul’s body was in a book whose canonicity you doubted, you would call it “magic” and say that obviously it’s an example of early moves toward superstitious saint-veneration. There are undisputedly canonical passages that speak`of the salvific value of alms; there are plenty of morally troubling actions performed by apparently holy characters in canonical Scripture; and so on.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

'zactly.

And don’t forget Leah Libresco

Good additional example.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Before I start researching your bible references to try to see things from your perspective I have a question. Your post indicates you’re Lutheran. I too was a Lutheran and we didn’t confess sins to the Priest. We would recite a prayer in mass confessing our sins as a congregation. When doing so it’s my personal sins being confessed directly from me to God. I’m a little confused by your response. Please clarify so I can better understand where you’re coming from. Thanks

Public or corporal confession in the Lutheran liturgy is sacramental since the pastor absolves all present. I believe in both Catholic and Anglican use, the confession at the start of Mass is an assurance of forgiveness rather than an actual absolution. You are correct that Lutherans, especially in North America, have fallen away from private confession. When my dad was growing up, anyone who intended to take holy Communion on Sunday, had to attend a confessional service on Saturday that involved corporate confession but individual absolution at the altar rail. I went to private confession before I was confirmed, as practiced in my childhood parish [LCMS] but came to greatly appreciation Holy Absolution [that the Lutheran confessions refer to as a sacrament] later in my life as a seminarian.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Right. And this contradicts Matthew, which says that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still alive.

The only way out is to posit that Quirinius had some other position in Syria earlier than our other sources record; that this position could fairly be called “governor of Syria” by Luke, even though we know he wasn’t the legate of Syria during the reign of Herod the Great; and that at this earlier time there was an otherwise unrecorded census.

Right, which is why I stated to PR that the census, while it took place, has to be fit 100% into the infancy narratives as far as harmonizing it all. However, the option you present above isn’t the only one. Another is that the Greek, where Luke states that the census “took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria,” can also be read as “before Quirinius was governor.”

The same is true, it seems to me, for your other objections. If the account of people being healed by handkerchiefs that had touched Paul’s body was in a book whose canonicity you doubted, you would call it “magic” and say that obviously it’s an example of early moves toward superstitious saint-veneration. There are undisputedly canonical passages that speak`of the salvific value of alms; there are plenty of morally troubling actions performed by apparently holy characters in canonical Scripture; and so on.

Edwin

You have me confused with Honorius

 

[Contarini]

Right, which is why I stated to PR that the census, while it took place, has to be fit 100% into the infancy narratives as far as harmonizing it all. However, the option you present above isn’t the only one. Another is that the Greek, where Luke states that the census “took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria,” can also be read as “before Quirinius was governor.”

But that contradicts the non-canonical sources, right? Don’t they say that the census happened after the death of Herod? You still have to posit an otherwise unrecorded census.

You have me confused with Honorius

I’m so sorry–I hate it when people do that to me!

Edwin

 

[Per_Crucem]

But that contradicts the non-canonical sources, right? Don’t they say that the census happened after the death of Herod? You still have to posit an otherwise unrecorded census.

No. The pagan sources say that the census took place somewhere in between 8 and 6 BC. Herod was the ruler of Judea until his death in 4 BC. Trusting Josephus that the census took place in 6 BC, then Jesus was born then, and was two years old when Herod died.

Where the difficulty comes into play is that Quirinius wasn’t governor of Syria until about 7 AD, 11 years after the birth of Christ. That is why many scholars believe that Luke is actually saying the census took place “before” Quirinius was governor of Syria, rather than “while” Quirinius was governor of Syria.

I’m so sorry–I hate it when people do that to me!

Edwin

No problem!

 

[ffg]

Ah man, away for a few days and bam! a great thread rolls through.

That is some serious detail about 2000+ years ago history there, but the more recent recorded history, like apostolic succession is inaccurate / hard to find? (maybe I missed something in flying through the thread)

I’m not much of a history scholar, but I always thought BC and AD were basically before and after Christ, so how Jesus was born in BC is beyond me.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ah man, away for a few days and bam! a great thread rolls through.

That is some serious detail about 2000+ years ago history there, but the more recent recorded history, like apostolic succession is inaccurate / hard to find? (maybe I missed something in flying through the thread)

I’m not much of a history scholar, I use it to buffer logical thinking. But I always thought BC and AD were basically before and after Christ, so how Jesus was born in BC is beyond me.

Because our calendar reflects scholars of previous centuries ideas of when it was thought Jesus was born, as opposed to dogmatically stating when he was born. He could be born in BC, if he was born earlier than previous generations of scholars thought

 

[Contarini]

Ah man, away for a few days and bam! a great thread rolls through.

That is some serious detail about 2000+ years ago history there, but the more recent recorded history, like apostolic succession is inaccurate / hard to find? (maybe I missed something in flying through the thread)

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

I’m not much of a history scholar, but I always thought BC and AD were basically before and after Christ, so how Jesus was born in BC is beyond me.

Dionysius Exiguus, the sixth-century scholar who came up with the “BC” and “AD” dating, made a mistake of at least 4 years, since Herod died in 4 B.C.

Edwin

 

[ffg]

If the definition of BC is ‘Before Christ’

Then what the Scholars are doing is moving goalposts. 4 years become AD (or years we got wrong, or whatever they want to call it)

Christ can’t be born ‘Before Christ’.

Well, he can do what he wants, but in the worlds nature, I don’t think someone can be born before they exist in the nature.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If the definition of BC is ‘Before Christ’

Then what the Scholars are doing is moving goalposts. 4 years become AD

Christ can’t be born ‘Before Christ’.

Well, he can do what he wants, but in the worlds nature, no.

That would be one way of putting it, as far as moving goalposts. However, the calendar itself won’t change because moving that much around would be way too much work

 

[ffg]

That would be one way of putting it, as far as moving goalposts. However, the calendar itself won’t change because moving that much around would be way too much work

Certainly. I don’t think we want to start teaching kids about a dark period of mis-understanding of years.

The other problem with the concept though is that, this would not be unique to this timeframe. If this was an issue once, we would see it multiple times with corrections in either direction.

More of a distraction than anything.

 

[benjohnson]

I don’t think someone can be born before they exist in the nature.

As someone who programs for a living, and has to deal with time zones, leap days, daylight savings time, leap seconds and the international date line… I can certainly testify that even today someone’s recorded birth date could be earlier than they actually exists. And we have atomic clocks.

Give thanks that the error wasn’t more than four years!

 

[ffg]

I’m guessing a focus on this 4 year thing helps some to conclude some type of defense.

I guess I would be curious if it’s an agreement that from 0 or Jesus’ birth forward, there have been 2013 and some months. Or is the thought that it’s been 2017 years and some months.

How does this error then account for what I’m guessing is a defense to some concept about time.