Do protestants have a reasonable non-Roman-Catholic explanation for John 20:22-23?
- Thread starter PaulThomson
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Of course, it will be impossible to debate a Roman church member because they use the writings of their cult to make their point while believers in Christ ascribe no authority to them. If you cannot agree on the authority of the source material then debate is a fool‘s errand.
That is somewhat different.
The Pope has a fund called Peter's Pence. People donate money into this know very well before hand it is for Pope's personal expenses. So the Pope can spend it on buying a yacht, or hire a team of personal security guards.
People donate to a church, to cover daily expenses, doing charity at so on, not knowing and would not agree the $$$ would go to pastor's private pocket.
Your hypocrisy is astounding. Either that or you haven’t seen pictures of the Vatican apartments.
I can see that you're very serious so i'm going to ask you a serious question.
Are you happy that your brothers and sisters in-Christ (from different denominations) love God?
Because most of us agree with the essentials.
Here's an essentials thread here: https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/essential-christian-doctrines.220701/
Protestants always quote this verse to attack on Mary not perpetual virgin, and had sex with Joseph afterwards bringing about Jesus's brothers!
I would say that you are using the modern meaning of 'until' onto old ancient scriptures.
If 'until' (Greek: heos) means “the same before, but different afterward.”, then you explain to me the meaning of the following verses:
(1)
Deuteronomy 9:7 says, “from the day you came out of the land of Egypt, until(heos) you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the Lord.”
Does the sacred author mean to imply that Israel magically stopped being rebellious after that?
(2)
Or again, John the Baptist “was in the wilderness until(heos) the day of his manifestation to Israel” (Luke 1:80). Does Luke therefore mean to imply that once John appeared to Israel he never lived in the desert again? No.
I see.
So your whole worldview after what Christ did depends on that verse.
Have you ever thought that you have more in common with Protestants than you think?
The joke i made earlier about the buildings illustrates how each side can do into a lot of extremes.
Yet, focus on the core message and essentials would be the main message that you should get from the Bible.
Well at least he is honest about what he believes, unlike other who keep it under wraps, I would count that as for more hypocritical.
"When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." - John Tetzel, Dominican Friar (Roman Catholic).
More excuses. And more assertions that the Holy Spirit was not being precise. Of course, if you believe your church can add to or take away from scripture then more excuses are expected from you.
You seem to be reading the word "exhort" as if it means "command". Peter calls himself only "a fellow presbyter". He does not identify himself to "the presbyters" as "your chief presbyter" or "your chief bishop" or anything like that. Christians are commanded to exhort one another -
Heb 3:13
But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
Exhorting someone does not require one to be hierarchically above the one exhorted.
You have yet to supply any quote from a bishop of Rome assigning to himself headship over all other bishops. Nor have you provided any quote where some other bishop addresses the bishop of Rome as his superior.
Did I take away or add on something to the verse???
(Your mind is such programmed to utter the above.)
Hey...following your line of argument, you don't find any quote of any bishops wrote to Rome and say: "You (Peter) is not my boss, shut up!!"
Your argument seems to actually work against you. You point out that we cannot conclude that the case before "until" does not continue after "until", and that is true. But neither can you assume that the case before "until" does continue after "until".
Gen 24:33
And there was set meat before him to eat: but he said, I will not eat, until (LXX heOs) I have told mine errand. And he said, Speak on.
Gen 32:24
And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until (LXX heOs) the breaking of the day.
Gen 33:3
And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until (LXX heOs) he came near to his brother.
Luk 1:20
And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until (heOs) the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
Luk 22:16
For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until (heOs) it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
Act 23:14
And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until (heOs) we have slain Paul.
There is no evidence in scripture that Jesus' mother remained a perpetual virgin. So, dogmatising the opinion is to add to scripture and force people to lie in order to be saved, by affirming as certain what their conscience may regard as uncertain. Roman Catholicism anathemises those who deny the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Sale of indulgence was the evil deeds of a few German dioceses, especially under Archbishop Albert. This was not a universal practice across all Europe.
That does not "follow my line of argument". But I see you admit you have no citation of any early church bishop who recognised Peter and bishops of Rome as their superior.
See what the three great Protestant reformers: Martin Luther, John Calvin and Zwingli said on perpetual virginity of Mary.
(1)Martin Luther:
“She is the highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ.
She was a virgin before the birth, she was a virgin in the birth, and she remained a virgin after the birth.”
— Sermon on the Magnificat (1521)
(2)Calvin, though rejecting later Catholic Marian devotion, affirmed perpetual virginity and used the same linguistic defense of heōs hou:
“He [Joseph] had no intercourse with her until she had brought forth her firstborn son.
No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words that Joseph had intercourse with her after her delivery; what took place afterward the historian does not inform us.
He simply means that Mary remained a virgin until she had brought forth her Son.”
— Commentary on Matthew 1:25
(3)Zwingli
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the Gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”
— Zwingli, Sermon on “Mary, Ever Virgin, Mother of God,” 1524
I wonder how and why modern Protestants have come to a different dogma: 'Mary not perpetual virgin' from their masters.
Is that a 'evolution of belief and theology'?
(I would call this mutation, distortion, defacement!)
This shows that modern Protestant denominations drifted further away from truth.