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

  • 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.
But you cannot tell just one of them!
Sure. There are priests who support abortion. There are some who support homosexuality. There are some charismatic Catholic churches. Some churches require the Latin mass. Some forbid it. I could go on, but there's really no point. You'll probably deny all of this anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron56
@beechan : Well, I think you've convinced me, brother: I might even convert to Catholicism! I've been thinking about it!
 
There are some charismatic Catholic churches. Some churches require the Latin mass. Some forbid it.
Roman Rites is the normative litugry of the church. However, Latin Mass is still permitted to be celebrated with approval from bishop.
 
Sure. There are priests who support abortion. There are some who support homosexuality.


When priests publicly express views that go against these teachings — for example, supporting abortion rights or same-sex marriage, the bishop or Vatican can take disciplinary action, which may include: public correction, suspension from ministry and removal from priestly duties.



Even if some priests personally sympathize with such views or social causes, the Church’s official moral teaching does not change based on individual opinions.
 
Matthew 16:18 has entered the chat.
Catholics view on Peter's role in Church does not base on Matthew 16:18 alone.
How about John 21, Jesus asked Peter three times: “Feed my lambs” , “Tend my sheep” and “Feed my sheep".
Jesus did not ask John , Matthew, Andrew......of course not Martin Luther as well.
 
Some churches require the Latin mass. Some forbid it.

Roman Rites is the normative litugry of the church. However, Latin Mass is still permitted to be celebrated with approval from bishop.

For your information:
Not even Latin Mass is still permitted, there is also the Eastern Rites in Eastern Catholic Churches where they celebrate masses in their own distinct traditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
Read your bible!

Genesis 11:26
Now these are the generations o f Terah: Terah beg at Abram,Nahor, andHaran;and Haran beg at Lot.
This verse tells us that Abram is the uncle of Lot: Abram is the brother of Lot's father. But in another verse, Abram is called Lot's "brother":

Genesis 14:12,14
And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom ,and his goods, and departed. And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive ,he armed his trained servants ,bornin his own house ,three hundred and eighteen ,and pursued them to Dan.

It is the KJV which actually translated Lot the brother of Abram!
Now it is the Protestant believers who insist 'brother' must literally means "from the same womb".
Wow… has it occurred to you that Genesis was written in Hebrew while the NT was written in Greek? You point is moot!
 
Wow… has it occurred to you that Genesis was written in Hebrew while the NT was written in Greek? You point is moot!

your point is moot

Not really!
Let me bring your attention to writing from two church fathers in 1st and 2nd century:

(1)
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect
, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

(2)
Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24)


Or may be Matthew uniquely wrote In Matthew 13 : “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”in Greek!


You protestant is too bounded by 'sola scriptura' that you know very little outside the gospels.

The original copy of Matthew in Hebrew was lost, of course.
 
I would comment that many protestant believers' [sola scriptura] is really 'sola KJV'!
 
Not really!
Let me bring your attention to writing from two church fathers in 1st and 2nd century:

(1)
Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect
, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

(2)
Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24)


Or may be Matthew uniquely wrote In Matthew 13 : “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”in Greek!


You protestant is too bounded by 'sola scriptura' that you know very little outside the gospels.

The original copy of Matthew in Hebrew was lost, of course.
Matthew was not written in Hebrew. It may have been written in Aramaic, but Hebrew was lost to the common people during the Babylonian exile. That's why when Ezra read the Law, he had to translate it (Neh 8:8).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron56
The church in Jerusalem was not a Catholic Church. It was made up of Jews only, there were no gentiles in the church yet.
Non sequitur.

But you missed the part where Paul and Barnabas testified of gentile believers.

The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.”

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wondersGod had done among Gentiles through them.”

When does the “pope” ever take a submissive role to others? James the brother of Jesus was in charge.
 
What the Protestant believers do is to crop out one verse from the scripture as if it is the solid evidence of their theology, especially if it is anti-Catholics!

All ideologues in the various sects do that, including the Roman Catholics. The foundation for belonging to Christ is the confession "Jesus is Lord" or "Jesus is the anointed one, the Son of the Living God." Sectarians who disqualify others from acceptance as brothers and sisters in Christ on the basis of some other benchmark, are the real heretics imo.
 
Matthew was not written in Hebrew. It may have been written in Aramaic, but Hebrew was lost to the common people during the Babylonian exile.
yeah…..US english and UK english are two different language!