Pay to Pray eRosary from the Vatican

[epostle]

We agree
How does Matthew 9:8 give man authority to forgive sins? The Son of Man (Jesus) yes. But He is God. So no, it does not grant men the authority but God already had the authority.

"Son of Man" means Jesus gave authority to forgive sins as a man. Your polemics is a plain denial of what Jesus said.

Sorry, The apocryphal books are not scripture.

Sorry, the Deuterocanonical books reveal the facts of Jewish history, that you arrogantly deny. As a side note, the Bereans were GREEK Pharisees, who studied the GREEK Deuterocanonical books as scripture, 200 years before Christ. A 66 book canon did not exist anywhere on the planet until the 14th century. It's another man made tradition. Now THAT is a red herring.

 

[Giuliano]

Again, the question remains. Where are indulgences authorized in Scripture?

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

 

[epostle]

Okay, so you're saying the spiritual Body with a capital "B," not the physical body. I'm not sure that I've heard this idea before, at least, not stated like this. I do believe that He is the vine and we are the branches because He said this. Just not sure how this fits with what you're saying.

It means he holds to an earthly physical Body with no head.

 

[Giuliano]

Okay, so you're saying the spiritual Body with a capital "B," not the physical body. I'm not sure that I've heard this idea before, at least, not stated like this. I do believe that He is the vine and we are the branches because He said this. Just not sure how this fits with what you're saying.

Yes,the Bible also often talks about "the Blood of Christ" or "the Blood of Jesus Christ" but almost never (I think once) the "blood of Jesus."

We should not think that physical blood or flesh is going to do much. It is Christ's spiritual Blood and Body that are important. All believers, whether in Heaven on on the earth, belong in the Body of Christ. We share in it by the Grace of God, and where two or three are gathered in His name, it is said he will be in their midst. I think we ought to believe then that Jesus Christ is truly present at Communion.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Yes,the Bible also often talks about "the Blood of Christ" or "the Blood of Jesus Christ" but almost never (I think once) the "blood of Jesus."

We should not think that physical blood or flesh is going to do much. It is Christ's spiritual Blood and Body that are important. All believers, whether in Heaven on on the earth, belong in the Body of Christ. We share in it by the Grace of God, and where two or three are gathered in His name, it is said he will be in their midst. I think we ought to believe then that Jesus Christ is truly present at Communion.

What's confusing me is that you're capitalizing the word blood. I don't know of any Bible verse where this word is capitalized. Also, I don't tend to differentiate between calling Him Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ, or Christ Jesus. I've read that Paul said His name different ways for a reason, but I personally don't think this is a huge deal. I usually call Him Jesus because that is His name (well, the English version) and the most personal to me. Christ (meaning Messiah or Savior) is His title.

I certainly agree that all believers in Jesus Christ are part of His body, the universal church. But I'm not sure what you mean by His "spiritual Blood."

 

[reformed1689]

John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Great, a verse taken out of context that has nothing to do with indulgences. Try again.

 

[reformed1689]

Your history is wrong. The Canon was established well before the 14th Century.

 

[Giuliano]

What's confusing me is that you're capitalizing the word blood. I don't know of any Bible verse where this word is capitalized. Also, I don't tend to differentiate between calling Him Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ, or Christ Jesus. I've read that Paul said His name different ways for a reason, but I personally don't think this is a huge deal. I usually call Him Jesus because that is His name (well, the English version) and the most personal to me. Christ (meaning Messiah or Savior) is His title.

I certainly agree that all believers in Jesus Christ are part of His body, the universal church. But I'm not sure what you mean by His "spiritual Blood."

The original Greek doesn't have capital letters for anything. The only reason I use "B" is to emphasize the spiritual nature rather than the physical.

The spiritual Blood is like the sap in a grape vine. It provides nourishment to the growing grapes. If we see the Church as the Bride of Christ, then we can see ourselves as developing babies in the womb connected to the Church through a cord -- the way a baby is connected with its mother. They share blood.

 

[reformed1689]

Matt. 16:19 – whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

The Hebrew term “halakah” has nothing to do with the Gospel.

Matt. 23:2-4 – the “binding and loosing” terminology used by Jesus was understood by the Jewish people. For example, Jesus said that the Pharisees “bind” heavy burdens but won’t move (“loose”) them with their fingers. Peter and the apostles have the new binding and loosing authority over the Church of the New Covenant.

What does the anti-Catholic do? He invents some nonsensical definition of a rabbinical term. D. Taylor still refuses to define true Gospel, because he knows he put his foot in his mouth.

Again cherry picking verses without context.

 

[Giuliano]

Great, a verse taken out of context that has nothing to do with indulgences. Try again.

It seems fairly obvious you don't believe the Apostles could remit sins and refuse to say so. Indeed I begin to wonder how much of the Bible you do believe. You seem to accept only the parts that suit your theories.

 

[reformed1689]

It seems fairly obvious you don't believe the Apostles could remit sins and refuse to say so.

I beleive I already said so.

Indeed I begin to wonder how much of the Bible you do believe. You seem to accept only the parts that suit your theories.

No, I don't deny any of Scripture, but I don't make ridiculous interpretations of it either.

 

[Giuliano]

I beleive I already said so.

I missed it if you did. Then why couldn't they tell people some of their sins would be remitted if they prayed for a certain length of time or contributed to charity?

 

[reformed1689]

I missed it if you did. Then why couldn't they tell people some of their sins would be remitted if they prayed for a certain length of time or contributed to charity?

What are you talking about?

 

[Giuliano]

What are you talking about?

Well, if they could remit sins, why couldn't they remit sins?

 

[epostle]

Your history is wrong. The Canon was established well before the 14th Century.

The canon was established for 12 centuries until Luther adulterated it. You can't provide any historical evidence that a 66 book canon was used as a Bible before the 14th century because it didn't exist.

The original Greek doesn't have capital letters for anything. The only reason I use "B" is to emphasize the spiritual nature rather than the physical.
The spiritual Blood is like the sap in a grape vine. It provides nourishment to the growing grapes. If we see the Church as the Bride of Christ, then we can see ourselves as developing babies in the womb connected to the Church through a cord -- the way a baby is connected with its mother. They share blood.

Oh, how "Catholic" of you!

Again cherry picking verses without context.

Then provide the context. But you won't, because that would be a discussion.
"Binding and loosing" has to do with remitting or not remitting, you can find the terminology in a Jewish encyclopedia. Jesus developed the term further when He transferred the authority of the Seat of Moses to Peter. What do you think "whatsoever" means? And who was Jesus talking to?

All your nonsense about indulgences doesn't prove a false gospel, because it has nothing to do with the "true Gospel", which you are unable or unwilling to define.
You are stumped and too proud to admit it.

 

[reformed1689]

But you can't provide any historical evidence that a 66 book canon was used as a Bible before the 14th century because it didn't exist.

4th Century, not 14th.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh I know the difference. Your hogwash rewritten history to protect your false church is the myth.

If it were true - you would have evidence - which you don't.

All you have is a document written by a German Bishop who was one of the abusers of the doctrine.
The Pope had NOTHING to do with writing it or ordering it.

Don't feel too bad. Greater minds than YOU have tried and failed . . .

 

[reformed1689]

If it were true - you would have evidence - which you don't.

All you have is a document written by a German Bishop who was one of the abusers of the doctrine.
The Pope had NOTHING to do with writing it or ordering it.

Don't feel too bad. Greater minds than YOU have tried and failed . . .

I gave evidence. You reject it. That doesn't make you right. Again, if it was sparking something as big as the Reformation the church would have stopped it if it wasn't decreed. Not to mention the Bishop would have been rebuked. Not to mention there wouldn't have been witnesses. Etc etc. You lose this one.

The RCC wants to re-write history to protect the church. The heretical church.

 

[amadeus]

What in the world are you babbling about?

Nice to meet you too, my friend. Give God the glory now and always!

Your first post to me could show a little more kindness considering that we are only just now meeting. If you don't understand what I am saying, simply ask for clarification. I will at least try.

With you a member of your group, should we not similarly have a problem with you calling your group Christian because that is how they identify? What is the difference? Maybe no one anywhere should call themselves Christian if anyone anywhere questions their assertion that they are?

What I meant was that you should try to put yourself in their shoes in order to hopefully understand their point of view. Of course you believe you are correct and that they are wrong, but this is true of all of us or we would not remain where we are, would we?

 

[amadeus]

Love how you take multiple Scriptures out of context at the same time....classic.

And what is this "truth" exactly? If as Paul writes, we are still seeing as through a glass darkly are we with all of our 'knowledge' that well qualified to be pointing to the beam or even the splinter in the eye of someone else?

My context is that of the all of the scriptures as I do read all them regularly and continuously. I don't claim to have a flawless understanding but I do want to express what I believe, whether everyone else agrees or not. This is how hopefully God will work through discussion to increase some or all of us...or?
I did not want to clutter the post with the quotation of each verse and what I understand so I stated it shortly in my own words. Are you not interested in hearing the beliefs of others who differ from you?

You seemingly rebuked me but I don't understand why? I have never belonged to a mainstream Protestant denomination, so I only have some vague ideas of what they believe and why. Oh I probably know something about the most commonly held doctrines but couldn't not separate which groups believe which ones if I were to try.

Is simply striving to follow the lead of the Holy Spirit a wrong way to proceed?