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

[beechan]

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16

I see you an occasional poster in this thread and you have not gone through a few pages to check what had been discussed before you post.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16

This had bee addressed in my post just not long ago:

#181
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-explanation-for-john-20-22-23.221041/page-10

Read it, your new input (if you have any) is welcome.

 

[beechan]

Rubbish. Catholicism creates an entirely false division between clergy (no such thing in the NT) .

see #273
just a few earlier post above yours!
Please read the previous posts before replying.

 

[beechan]

The first Christians had the Bible. It was what is wrongly called the Old Testament.

Good point raised!

Yes, at Jesus time there was OT.
Yet, Jesus said such things several times in Matthew chapter 5:21, 27
"You have heard that it was said ....(Jesus was quoting scriptures)...But I say to you, ....(Jesus was amending them and added on his teaching to a better version!)

You see....Jesus was not a fan of 'sola scriptura!!

 

[decipher]

Show us evidence on this claim

Don't ask me to go and find.
You bring me some here.
I am waiting to see them.

Augustine of Hippo lived from 354 AD to 430 AD. That is the time that Nicene Emperor Theodocius declared the Edict of Thessalonica which declared that the Trinity had to be taught throughout the Roman empire, and anyone teachig anything different would be punished by the Roman government. This punishment would include confisation of property and death.
The enforcement of these laws culminated in a grim precedent: in 384 AD, the Spanish ascetic Priscillian and several of his followers were tried and executed by a secular court on charges of heresy, marking the first time that Christians were put to death for their beliefs by a Christian Roman state.

 

[beechan]

Augustine of Hippo lived from 354 AD to 430 AD. That is the time that Nicene Emperor Theodocius declared the Edict of Thessalonica which declared that the Trinity had to be taught throughout the Roman empire, and anyone teachig anything different would be punished by the Roman government. This punishment would include confisation of property and death.
The enforcement of these laws culminated in a grim precedent: in 384 AD, the Spanish ascetic Priscillian and several of his followers were tried and executed by a secular court on charges of heresy, marking the first time that Christians were put to death for their beliefs by a Christian Roman state.

decipher said:
The Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian organization that killed other Christians that did not agree with their erroneous doctrines.

(1)
You put the execution of Spanish ascetic Priscillian and several of his followers under the blame of Roman Catholic Church as if it was nothing to do with the Protestant.
Before 1517, the Roman Catholics and the Protestants were the same church. Was Jesus on leave from 1st century, leaving the Catholic Church to do evil and wrong teaching until 1517 he resumed duty? From then he chose Martin Luther to start a new,real church?

So, Protesrants were still accountable for the execution of Christains with erronousc doctrines. There was blood in their hands too.

 

[beechan]

Augustine of Hippo lived from 354 AD to 430 AD. That is the time that Nicene Emperor Theodocius declared the Edict of Thessalonica which declared that the Trinity had to be taught throughout the Roman empire, and anyone teachig anything different would be punished by the Roman government. This punishment would include confisation of property and death.
The enforcement of these laws culminated in a grim precedent: in 384 AD, the Spanish ascetic Priscillian and several of his followers were tried and executed by a secular court on charges of heresy, marking the first time that Christians were put to death for their beliefs by a Christian Roman state.

decipher said:
The Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian organization that killed other Christians that did not agree with their erroneous doctrines.

(2)
Let follow your line of thought that Roman Catholics and Protestants were different.

It was some 350 years the Catholic Church began the first execution of people with heretic teaching. What an evil church!!

How about the Protestants. They split from Catholic Church in 1517. John Calvin at Geneva executed Michael Seevetus for heresy in 1553, and executed Jacques Gruet for criticizing Calvin in 1546.
Martin Luther had no objection to the killing in the Peasant Revolt 1524-25. All these happened in less than 50 years after the splitting from the Catholic Church.

Which church was more intolerant to erroneous doctrines?

 

[PaulThomson]

You are heavily brain washed with the doctrine 'sola scriptura'.
The claim: “If it’s not in the Bible, it’s not legitimate.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
Paul clearly says oral teachings (Tradition) are equally binding as written Scripture.
This alone refutes the idea that “if it’s not written, it’s illegitimate.”

If “only the Bible” made things legitimate, then:
The apostles’ first listeners (before anything was written) had no true Christianity — which is absurd.

Friend, I can follow Jesus quite adequately by grace through faith without embracing the traditions of various Christian sects, including the Roman Catholic sect, which I was raised in. If you want to add some traditions to your by grace through faith salvation, carry on., my over-ladened brother in Christ But I prefer to walk with Jesus unencumbered by extraneous baggage that adds nothing to my communion wth God.

 

[PaulThomson]

Do you mean Christians are eating each other when receiving Euchrist?

No. It is a symbolic expression of the fact that we are receiving the body of Christ, i.e. one another, into our hearts.

Phl 1:7
Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

 

[decipher]

(2)
Let follow your line of thought that Roman Catholics and Protestants were different.

It was some 350 years the Catholic Church began the first execution of people with heretic teaching. What an evil church!!

How about the Protestants. They split from Catholic Church in 1517. John Calvin at Geneva executed Michael Seevetus for heresy in 1553, and executed Jacques Gruet for criticizing Calvin in 1546.
Martin Luther had no objection to the killing in the Peasant Revolt 1524-25. All these happened in less than 50 years after the splitting from the Catholic Church.

Which church was more intolerant to erroneous doctrines?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant. I'm just a Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God and that the true understanding of it comes through the Holy Spirit. All that we can do is preach what we understand knowing that the Father will bring this understanding to those He chooses. Yes, you are right. Both are guilty, because true Christians don't try to force their beliefs on others. They spread truth by words, not the sword.

 

[studier]

Two wrongs don't make a right

Simple truth that the Catholic debater doesn't seem to comprehend.

 

[Dino246]

Good point raised!

Yes, at Jesus time there was OT.
Yet, Jesus said such things several times in Matthew chapter 5:21, 27
"You have heard that it was said ....(Jesus was quoting scriptures)...But I say to you, ....(Jesus was amending them and added on his teaching to a better version!)

You see....Jesus was not a fan of 'sola scriptura!!

What a ridiculous misrepresentation!

Jesus didn’t change Scripture; He clarified its meaning.

Jesus continually pointed people to the written word. If anything, He was particularly in favour of “sola scriptura”!

 

[beechan]

Friend, I can follow Jesus quite adequately by grace through faith without embracing the traditions of various Christian sects, including the Roman Catholic sect, which I was raised in. If you want to add some traditions to your by grace through faith salvation, carry on., my over-ladened brother in Christ But I prefer to walk with Jesus unencumbered by extraneous baggage that adds nothing to my communion wth God.

#287

Friend, I can follow Jesus quite adequately by grace through faith without embracing the traditions of various Christian sects, including the Roman Catholic sect, which I was raised in. If you want to add some traditions to your by grace through faith salvation, carry on., my over-ladened brother in Christ But I prefer to walk with Jesus unencumbered by extraneous baggage that adds nothing to my communion wth God.

Simple truth that the Catholic debater doesn't seem to comprehend.

There is no point in debating over personal preference.

Like some people like eating durian in spite of the strong bad smell and looking like eating poops.

I won't debate on why you like it. I debate on whether durian's 'bad smell' and 'poop like' are facts.

 

[beechan]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But you have to prove me wrong in the first place. I don't see this in your reply. Therefore, there are only 'rights' in my post.

Exposing your 'wrongs' is not a wrong too.

 

[beechan]

I'm neither Catholic nor Protestant. I'm just a Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God and that the true understanding of it comes through the Holy Spirit.

Looking like you are saying "I am not male nor female." What kind of man are you?

May be you are member of your One-Man Church.

No big deal for adding one more minute denomination to the 40000s.

 

[beechan]

What a ridiculous misrepresentation!

Jesus didn't change Scripture; He clarified its meaning.

Jesus continually pointed people to the written word. If anything, He was particularly in favour of “sola scriptura”!

So Protestants' misreading of

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16

need to be clarified too.

#181
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...-explanation-for-john-20-22-23.221041/page-10

One more example:



Matthew 12:1–8

When the Pharisees accused His disciples of breaking the Sabbath by plucking grain:

Jesus replied:

“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”



You see here, Jesus's teachings override scriptures.

 

[beechan]

@Dino246
Are you so speechless that you cannot say the reason why you disagreed, instead of just giving a reaction?

 

[Dino246]

@Dino246
Are you so speechless that you cannot say the reason why you disagreed, instead of just giving a reaction?

Are you such a jackdonkey that you must challenge with demeaning snark instead of respectfully inquiring?

 

[beechan]

I'm just a Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God

These were the arguments going back a few pages of this thread.

the Bible is the word of God
(1) I have no objection on that.
Is every word in the bible 'Words of God'?
see #181

(2) Does the bible cover everything GOD wanted to reveal to us?
Does GOD has limited power that HE cannot teach us outside the Bible.

 

[beechan]

that the true understanding of it comes through the Holy Spirit.

the true understanding of it comes through the Holy Spirit.

Why the same HOLY SPIRIT leads people to understand the scriptures differently or even in heretic manner?
Is the HOLY SPIRIT guiding you undisputed genuine?
Go and find where the one true HOLY SPIRIT rest.

 

[Mem]

#287











There is no point in debating over personal preference.

Like some people like eating durian in spite of the strong bad smell and looking like eating poops.

I won't debate on why you like it. I debate on whether durian's 'bad smell' and 'poop like' are facts.

It rather looks like an unhealthy liver to me, and indeed it does have a complex relationship with liver health.