Posted on 06/23/2018 7:48:28 AM PDT by Salvation
“You can buy them online, btw. False glory for sale.”
Communion in the hand makes it possible for sacred hosts to be stolen, and sold to satanists who desecrate them. The satanists know which hosts to obtain. Jesus permits this because His Love for us is immeasurable and unstoppable.
By the way, we know a glorified body has four new properties that were not there before:
1. agility — The ability to travel from place to place by just thinking.
2. permeability — e.g. Jesus walking through walls to reach the Apostles
3. incorruptibility — in the passage you just cited.
4. immortality — in the passage you just cited.
Thomas Aquinas discusses this in his Summa along with supporting references.
But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them. Rev 11:11
The Bible disagrees with you on this as it does so much of what you believe.
And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory." In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew Isaiah 6:1-4
"For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea Habakkuk 2:14
O LORD, our Lord, How majestic is Your name in all the earth, Who have displayed Your splendor above the heavens! Psalms 8:1
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Psalms 19:1 NASB
But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; Acts 7:55
And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. Luke 2:9
We are washed clean in His Blood. His Blood is upon the lintels of our souls to save us from the angel of death.
If we are washed clean in His Blood, and we are, then the Roman Catholic doctrines of mortal sins, loss of salvation, purgatory are all negated.
No, the passive voice means that the actions was done by someone other than the subject of the verb. And yes, that would be by God. But what is important here is the moods that are used in the two clauses: subjunctive/indicative. The action in the indicative is predicated on the action in the subjunctive being done. Thus the actions of forgiving/retaining [by God] is predicated on the forgiving/retaining by the Apostles. Nor does this take away that ultimately this is done by God himself. Rather, that God forgives/retains through the human agents to whom he has delegated this authority.
It should also be noted that the forgiving/retaining by God is not predicated on the proclaiming the forgiving/retaining but by the act of forgiving/retaining by the Apostles.
1:11 Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. 12 For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, 14 and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when [God], who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me,l so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23 they only kept hearing that “the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 So they glorified God because of me.Paul proclaims the divine origin of the gospel that he preaches. He also notes the zeal that he previously practiced Judaism and persecuted the church. This he does to set up his authority to criticize those who claim that the Jewish law must still be held by Christian believers.
Feel free to add any comments that you would like.
My only comment is that you are not making an outline.
You are attempting to write a commentary.
You have to summarize into main points... preferably single sentences or less... for each unit of thought.
Best.
While you might prefer an outline, I prefer to go through Galatians I see how Paul develops his argument as he does it. I am not your student, so I need not follow your methods.
Petrosius, rather than rely on memory, I just stepped into my library and pulled out my Greek grammar, the Wuest New Testament with Expanded Translations (that translates the sense of the grammar as well as word-for-word meanings), and Baker's Analytical Greek New Testament.
All good language and translation resources.
I disagreed with your apologetic post, regarding what the grammar means. I went to see how it is handled by those who don't have an axe to grind.
And I thank you for that experience. It is always a good thing to review God's Word.
As a recap of the conversation that brought us to this point...
You made the argument that priests can forgive sins.And so here we are talking about grammar. :-)
I made the argument that this is false.
You referred to this passage in John 20 to demonstrate that priests can forgive sin.
I pointed out that the *Apostles* in the passage could proclaim the forgiveness in the Gospel as they spread it to fulfill Christ's mission.
Unfortunately, the position you are advocating is not found in the passage we are discussing.
It is never found anywhere else in the NT either.
Forgiveness happens in heaven previous to any proclamation of the Gospel by the Apostles who Christ was now sending out.
Here is the Wuest Expanded Translation from Greek, of the John 20 passage we are discussing.
"Even as the Father sent me on a mission, for which I am still responsible, I also am sending you.And having said this, He breathed on them and says to them, Receive at once the Holy Spirit.
If the sins of certain individuals you forgive, they have been previously forgiven them, with the present result that they are in a state of forgiveness.
If the sins of any certain individuals you retain in not forgiving them, they have been previously retained and thus have not been forgiven, with the present result that they are retained and in a state of not being forgiven.
It is equally important to see what is not in the passage.
Christ sent them to proclaim the Gospel as a continuation of his message of bringing the Gospel to the World.Nor does the passage support the idea that a "priest" (not a NT church office) can forgive sins, given that no priest was there - in fact no Christian "priest" is found in the NT.The passage is not about a system of regular forgiveness of sins of individual believers inside the Church.
It is about the proclamation of the Gospel of Forgiveness to non-believers.
Let that sink in a bit. The Catholic system of rituals and works is built on things that never appear in the revelation given to the Church - no priests, no forgiveness by priests, no prayers to saints, etc.
In summary, the idea you are bringing to the passage to justify what is taught by Rome, is not true.
I know you believe it, and I suspect will always believe it, since you are not seeking truth, but validation.
Still, I give you credit for at least approaching the Scriptures.
I would suggest you start with the Scripture and determine what it says, instead of starting outside the Scripture in Rome and looking to see if Scripture states it.
Best
You of course, can do it however you think best. You are missing things as you go that would be helpful to you. You are making assumptions not in the passage.
I only suggest a summarized point outline so that you will see what is there and not what you wish to be there.
This is a thin read that you are relying on. First, you must know that three variant readings of the Greek: αφεωνται (perfect), αφιενται (present), and αφεθησεται (future!). Second, you are misunderstanding the use of the perfect tense is Greek. The perfect tense is concerned with the ongoing result of a completed action, rather than being merely temporal. If the fact that this action was previous temporally was what was being emphasized, then the aorist or the pluperfect would have been used. See Catalin Varga, "A Problematic Missionary Text: John 20:23 and the Issue of the Translation of the Two Main Clauses (ἀφίενται and κεκράτηνται)," STUDIA UBB THEOL. ORTH., Vol. 60 (LX), 2015, No. 2, pp. 91-106:
An interesting answer is given by Professor H. Cadbury, who, as opposed to us, follows the direction of the perfect αφεωνται and yet he reaches the same result of the presence of priesthood within the text. The perfects from the text may be found in the apodosis of several general conditionals introduced by the particle ἄν τινων. The general conditionals are difficult to limit to the verbal tenses and it’s not even the case as Cadbury suggests. The question is whether a perfect from the apodosis indicates an action or a condition anterior to the time used in the protasis; that this is not the case is shown by the texts from (I John 2:5; Jacob 2:10; Romans 14:23; 13:8). We may say for sure that the action or the condition implied by the perfect is not always prior to the other clause. Similar examples of this perfect may be found in (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39) which are in fact “perfects for a Future Perfect”, and in this category we may also include John 20:23. What professor Cadbury means is that even if we choose the Perfect αφεωνται we make no mistake regarding the nuance of priesthood imposed by this text, for in the majority of cases, the perfect used in apodosis, in our case: “have already been forgiven”, does not necessarily indicate the ending of this action at the moment of the actual observer, nor an action prior to the verb from protasis, in our case the forgiveness of sins. Hence, the presence of this perfect does not indicate that the sins have already been forgiven by God and that the priests only have to certify this truth, as some scholars suggest, because the ending of the action of forgiving the sins is not given by this perfect αφεωνται but by the inspired decision of the clergy to act in this respect – hence the logical presence of the Subjunctive ἀφῆτε.Nor does the passage support the idea that a "priest" (not a NT church office) can forgive sins, given that no priest was there - in fact no Christian "priest" is found in the NT.
This canard again. "Priest" is the English rendering of the Greek πρεσβύτερος. Old English, like Greek and Latin, had two different words priest, which was only used to translate πρεσβύτερος, and sacerd, which was used to translated ἱερεύς. That modern English translates both as "priest" is unfortunate, but its usage for the NT πρεσβύτερος and its continuing office today is still valid.
If you think that this is the case, then I welcome you to point it out. But to continue:
Chapter 2Here Paul finally brings up what is in dispute and why he wrote the letter; do Christians need to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law? Vv. 1-10 review how this dispute first arose and how it was settled at the Council of Jerusalem. In vv. 11-14 he shows that even Peter, for a time, was caught up in this. In vv. 15-21 he summarizes the issue. Here, when he speaks of "works of the law" or the "law" he is speaking only of circumcision and the Mosaic Law. He is not speaking of adherence to the moral law of God. This is the theme of the letter. What follows is his argument that we do not need to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law. To expand this to include the Lutheran doctrine of "faith alone" without the obligation to follow the moral law is a misrepresentation of Paul.
1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles—but privately to those of repute—so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain. 3 Moreover, not even Titus, who was with me, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, 4 but because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, that they might enslave us— 5 to them we did not submit even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain intact for you. 6 But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, 8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, 9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do.11 And when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. 12 For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. 13 And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
15 We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles, 16 [yet] who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? Of course not! 18 But if I am building up again those things that I tore down, then I show myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.
Sorry, I double-checked a variety of scholars in language, history, translation, and a handful of solid commentaries. And of course, my own translation.
All disagree with your view.
“This canard again. "Priest" is the English rendering of the Greek πρεσβύτερος. Old English, like Greek and Latin, had two different words priest, which was only used to translate πρεσβύτερος, and sacerd, which was used to translated ἱερεύς.”
Sorry, but the functions of a catholic priest are not functions in the NT. Nor do the word usages in Old English determine the meanings of the words in Greek chosen by the Blessed Holy Spirit.
I am pinging daniel1212, because he has researched and written extensively on this very issue.
Kind nd regards.
You went off the rails before today. Today, you continued down the hill.
To correct your presuppositions and assumptions would be for me to do the work you refused to do.
... which is why I suggested a path to knowledge originally.
I’ve seen this same issue in many fields of endeavor. It is the human condition.
As the saying goes, when God makes a squash, He takes a month. When God makes an oak tree, He takes a hundred years,
We each cooperate in what is built and in our aspirations.
Free will and all that.
Best
Show me where in Galatians 2 Paul is talking about anything other than circumcision and the Mosaic Law. You claim “sola scriptura.” Put aside your Protestant commentaries and show me in Galatians itself what Paul is saying.
Sorry, but you are pursuing your own system and process, after refusing my suggestion. It is your right to live as you choose.
I cannot do the work you refuse to do Petrosius.
Before I ever went to seminary, I had outlined Galatians and other books on my own - verse by verse.
Do you know what they had me do in seminary??
I outlined every book in the Bible as part of my training. Still have them all in files about 40 feet from where I am sitting as I type. But of course the process had the benefit of giving me a broader understanding of how each book fits into the totality of revelation and the big picture of the purpose of God's revelation. And not just me. Everyone who goes through the effort.
Having gone through seminary, from day one until graduation and all the work in between, I can tell you the work is worthwhile. And I suggested how to approach it. It would prevent the errors you are making.
But I will not now work on correcting the conclusions you decided upon without doing the work.
These are my opinions based on my life experience and I submit them for your consideration - or not, as you see fit. Kind regards and best wishes.
Just reading what Paul actually wrote. It is pretty easy if you don't try to force pre-conceived Protestant theology upon it. The truth is that the Protestants are just as dependent upon their own tradition as any Catholic. They just are not honest enough to admit it.
Peace.
I disagree with both statements you made there.
The path I suggested to you is the foundation that theology is later built from. When you start with an idea - from any source and go to find something that sounds like that in the Scriptures, you aren't seeking truth, but validation.
I admire those who seek truth.
The truth is that the Protestants are just as dependent upon their own tradition as any Catholic. They just are not honest enough to admit it.
Not surprisingly, I disagree with that statement. Now I can't speak for all non-romans, some of which are not protestants, but I do speak for me.
I don't care at all about tradition from any source. I care about what God said. And when He speaks, we don't need unwritten traditions.
Best.
The idea that I started with is what Paul wrote in Galatians 2. At this point in his letter it is clear that he is speaking of circumcision and the Mosaic Law. If you want to hold that, from your reading, Paul latter in Galatians expands on this notion, fine. But you will have to show that. In Galatians 2, however, that the subject of his argument is circumcision and the Mosaic Law cannot not be disputed unless, that is, you want to force it into Protestant theology.
Peace.
“The idea that I started with is what Paul wrote in Galatians 2. ”
Yes, I know that is what you think you did. This is where your method led you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.