Do protestants have a reasonable non-Roman-Catholic explanation for John 20:22-23?

[beechan]

Freudian typo especially just past Halloween where the costumes - sorry, "vestments" - give special recognition powers.

What if Halloween with no costumes, will it be a Halloween then?

 

[beechan]

Agree. But I'm sure you and I disagree.

Not a very good analogy unless we want to discuss how Rome created its own culture and all the Woodstock attendees are the sheep of denomination Rome while the non-Rome don't attend the show. Not that one at least.

Your other photos seemed to have fallen flat also according to @ChristRoseFromTheDead.

You don't get my point.
It is not the Catholic Church on the stage. It is Jesus.

Not me who has fallen flat, you slipped.

 

[studier]

What you want to say? What a funny sentence!

You'll figure it out.

 

[studier]

What if Halloween with no costumes, will it be a Halloween then?

Is it church without the costumes?

 

[studier]

You don't get my point.
It is not the Catholic Church on the stage. It is Jesus.

Not me who has fallen flat, you slipped.

The problem with analogies is they can be reframed and corrected.

Where you see Jesus on stage and the "faithful" - some near & some further away from the stage - others may well see the head of Rome and his faithful some near the stage and some further away, and wonder why your blindness.

 

[beechan]

Freudian typo especially just past Halloween where the costumes - sorry, "vestments" - give special recognition powers.

You tell the fire fighter that his 'vestment' give him no power, no need to put them on when carrying out duty.

 

[beechan]

The problem with analogies is they can be reframed and corrected.

Where you see Jesus on stage and the "faithful" - some near & some further away from the stage - others may well see the head of Rome and his faithful some near the stage and some further away, and wonder why your blindness.

Do you have a writing difficulty? You sentence is incomprehensible .
Or leaving me to 'figure it' out again?

 

[Dino246]

No difference? not really!

A soldier salutes a superior officer when he or the officer are in uniform. This is not required when in civilian clothes.

Completely irrelevant. Nobody in the Church is “superior” except Jesus.

 

[Dino246]

You tell the fire fighter that his 'vestment' give him no power, no need to put them on when carrying out duty.

There is a vast difference between functional garments and “vestments” worn by self-appointed “authorities”.

That you attempt to conflate the two tells me you’re desperate to defend your position and have abandoned reason in the process.

 

[beechan]

Completely irrelevant. Nobody in the Church is “superior” except Jesus.

When the priest is representing Jesus in a scarament, he is superior.
Just like a general in uniform, he is superior over a private.

 

[studier]

You tell the fire fighter that his 'vestment' give him no power, no need to put them on when carrying out duty.

Your analogies are wanting, and now you’re mixing pure function with ornamental symbolism.

 

[studier]

Do you have a writing difficulty? You sentence is incomprehensible .
Or leaving me to 'figure it' out again?

Which sentence - the previous one you don't understand or the ones you just quoted for the above comments?

 

[beechan]

Which sentence - the previous one you don't understand or the ones you just quoted for the above comments?

You'll figure it out.

 

[studier]

You'll figure it out.

Already stopped thinking about it.

 

[Dino246]

When the priest is representing Jesus in a scarament, he is superior.
Just like a general in uniform, he is superior over a private.

Not in the least. What you have is a man-made tradition with no biblical warrant. You may be familiar with the tradition and therefore see rank where there is none, but you won’t convince me or anyone who knows Scripture well to agree with your tradition.

 

[studier]

There is nothing in John 20:23 indicating to me that Jesus was "giving authority" to the disciples to forgive sins committed against God. Elsewhere in scripture Jesus instructs His disciples that it is their duty to forgive sins against themselves for which they had received an apology , and warned them that there would be awful repercussions for disciples withholding forgiveness from someone who had said sorry,. He also commands us to do the best we can to be at peace with all men before praying or giving an offering to God , taking our complaints about unforgiven offences to the person concerned privately, then with two or three others and then to the church to give the offender all possible opportunities to apologise, or to learn from others that I was the unreasonable one who should apologise.

Just using this to flag you. I had forgotten about some of the range of the Perfect Tense. Maybe you had some of this in mind when you started this thread:

Proleptic (Futuristic) Perfect

1. Definition

The perfect can be used to refer to a state resulting from an antecedent action that is future from the time of speaking. (This is similar to one of the strands of the proleptic aorist.) This usage occurs in the apodosis of a conditional clause (either explicit or implicit) and depends on the time of the verb in the protasis. The proleptic perfect is quite rare.26

2. Illustrations

Rom 13:8
ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν

the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law
Jas 2:10
ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσῃ πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος.27

For whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles in one point has become guilty of all [of it].

The reason to take this as a proleptic perfect is that the (implied) condition is the equivalent of a future more probable condition. It is also possible to treat this (along with the rest of the examples) as a gnomic perfect since the sinner in view is generic.

1 John 2:5
ὃς δ᾽ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται

But whoever keeps his word, truly in him the love of God is perfected.



Cf. also John 20:23; Rom 14:23.

 

[beechan]

Not in the least. What you have is a man-made tradition with no biblical warrant. You may be familiar with the tradition and therefore see rank where there is none, but you won’t convince me or anyone who knows Scripture well to agree with your tradition.

That is a tradition kept by many protestant denominations as well.
The protestant clergies do put on robe, stole and collar in service, prototyping Catholic priests vestments.

 

[beechan]

Not in the least. What you have is a man-made tradition with no biblical warrant. You may be familiar with the tradition and therefore see rank where there is none, but you won’t convince me or anyone who knows Scripture well to agree with your tradition.

I think you have not read Leviticus. There is a full chapter to describe how Levi priests should dress and act when they serve the tabernacle and later the temple. These are intructions from GOD on how to worship HIM.

 

[Dino246]

That is a tradition kept by many protestant denominations as well.
The protestant clergies do put on robe, stole and collar in service, prototyping Catholic priests vestments.

The robes in a protestant church don’t convey any superiority either. The entire practice is a holdover from old covenant practice where priests needed to be identifiable because they were literally set apart for their work.

The Church doesn’t have the role of priest as the OT did. There is no need for fancy vestments.

 

[beechan]

The robes in a protestant church don’t convey any superiority either. The entire practice is a holdover from old covenant practice where priests needed to be identifiable because they were literally set apart for their work.

The Church doesn’t have the role of priest as the OT did. There is no need for fancy vestments.

Why do Catholic priests need not be identifiable and are literally set apart for performing sacraments.