toldailytopic: Penance and church confessional for the absolution of sins, is that s

[zippy2006]

Rather, he told them to cease from sin, even if they have to cut off a body part, because if they don't they will perish in hellfire.

Do you agree?

Uh, sort of... When a parent tries to instill moral goodness into their child they may use simple punishments as direction, but their goal is something more than teaching their child to do good out of fear of punishment. We avoid sin not merely to escape punishment, but rather so that we may live in glory with Christ. In fact we are willing to endure much for Christ.

So Jesus is not threatening us to "be good or else..", but could more properly be said to be teaching us about goodness/God Himself and which things will lead us away from His love.

:e4e:

 

[elohiym]

So Jesus is not threatening us to "be good or else.."

He clearly is telling them that one should cut off his hand and pluck out his eye if that is what it takes to stop sinning, because the consequence for failing to stop sinning completely is that one will perish in hell fire. See also Luke 13:1-5.

The implication is stop sinning completely, not confess your sins to "special" men who have alleged power to forgive.

 

[chickenman]

Then why even give the Apostles that power? :idunno:

Because He appointed them to represent Him following His ascension. Specifically them: 12 men to judge the 12 tribes of Israel in the regeneration.

Your view here is no doubt deeply entrenched in MAD, right?

It's based on what I see in the scriptures...nothing more.

You believe that the power that the Apostles were given was only necessary for that short dispensation.

Regardless of time period or dispensation, the authority was given specifically to the apostles.

Ask Christ, for you admit that he said precisely that. This power has been passed down from the Apostles to the successor of Peter and the Catholic priesthood. There is no doubt that the Apostles passed this power on to their successors. We have only to ask whether that Church continues to exist today or whether the powers of evil prevailed against it. :idunno:

I'm only going on what I see in the scriptures. I see Jesus appointing 12 and empowering them specifically, since they were appointed to be judges in the regeneration. There is zero indication that they were transferring that authority to anyone else. And Matthias can't be used as a counter to this, as he filled the office of Judas, bringing the number back to the 12 required to sit on the 12 thrones over the 12 tribes in the regeneration. He became one of the Twelve.

There's no biblical support for a priest claiming that authority from the chosen apostles.

-zip :e4e:

Thanks, zippo. :cheers:

 

[zippy2006]

He clearly is telling them that one should cut off his hand and pluck out his eye if that is what it takes to stop sinning, because the consequence for failing to stop sinning completely is that one will perish in hell fire. See also Luke 13:1-5.

Then we disagree and I'd say you're failing to distinguish symbolic language :idunno:

The implication is stop sinning completely, not confess your sins to "special" men who have alleged power to forgive.

Do you need God's forgiveness or not?

 

[elohiym]

Do you need God's forgiveness or not?

I needed it for closure, for peace of mind.

For me there was no closure until I understood what it meant to cease from sin completely (1Pe 4:1). Then I truly understood God's forgiveness (Lk 7:47).

The confessional booth cheapens God's forgiveness and makes it appear like a commodity, in my opinion.

 

[Sherman]

toldailytopic: Penance and church confessional for the absolution of sins, is that something a Christian should do?

Nope and here's why: Once you become a Christian you are a new creature. Sin is no longer imputed to you. Going to confessionals cheapens the price Jesus paid to take away your sin. Catholic priests don't have the same authority the Apostles have--As Chickenman so astutely pointed out. We are also not part of Israel, over which the Twelve will rule. This system applies to the Jews.

We are the Body of the Christ. We are not under Jewish law.

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

We don't have to keep confessing our sins to a man to have him absolve us of our sin.

 

[Persephone66]

Confess all you want, doesn't change the fact that you did it.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you need God's forgiveness or not?

I needed it for closure, for peace of mind.

You are saying that God's forgiveness is a subjective thing for you. Is it any more than that?

 

[elohiym]

You are saying that God's forgiveness is a subjective thing for you.

Like this:

Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Any person that has unforgiven sin right now can only love their neighbor imperfectly.

Can you love your neighbor perfectly? Why not, if not the reason I just gave? :idunno:

Is it any more than that?

Should it be?

 

[chrysostom]

So why didn't Jesus just say, go confess to a priest instead of "you should pluck out your eye?"

why did Jesus give the apostles the power to forgive sins?

 

[chrysostom]

your sins are not forgiven because Jesus suffered and died on the cross
He just paid the penalty for them
you must still repent

bind and loose has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins
it means the pope can change things

this is where Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sins

John 20:23
King James Version (KJV)
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

 

[elohiym]

why did Jesus give the apostles the power to forgive sins?

He didn't just give it to the twelve.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Logically, anyone who preaches the gospel has the power to forgive sins through preaching that message.

 

[zippy2006]

Like this:

Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Any person that has unforgiven sin right now can only love their neighbor imperfectly.

Can you love your neighbor perfectly? Why not, if not the reason I just gave? :idunno:

I agree

Should it be?

Well you say:

Any person that has unforgiven sin right now...

Does "unforgiven" mean unforgiven according to them and their subjective decision or according to God? Do you see a difference between the two?

 

[firon]

Remission of sins is only through the blood of Christ. Other methods are idolatry.

 

[elohiym]

Does "unforgiven" mean unforgiven according to them and their subjective decision or according to God?

Solely their perspective, their faith.

 

[zippy2006]

Because He appointed them to represent Him following His ascension. Specifically them: 12 men to judge the 12 tribes of Israel in the regeneration.



It's based on what I see in the scriptures...nothing more.

Regardless of time period or dispensation, the authority was given specifically to the apostles.

Aye, I say that it is "deeply entrenched in MAD" because no non-MADist would approach it the way you are approaching it imo.

I'm only going on what I see in the scriptures. I see Jesus appointing 12 and empowering them specifically, since they were appointed to be judges in the regeneration. There is zero indication that they were transferring that authority to anyone else. And Matthias can't be used as a counter to this, as he filled the office of Judas, bringing the number back to the 12 required to sit on the 12 thrones over the 12 tribes in the regeneration. He became one of the Twelve.

There's no biblical support for a priest claiming that authority from the chosen apostles.

Apostolic succession.

There certainly is such evidence, both in the New Testament (Titus 1:5, Judas' replacement, 2 Timothy 2:2) and in the writings of the Early Church (Ignatius, Irenaeus). Even in the OT we see Moses passing down his own position, we see Elijah pick Elisha, we see the passing down of the priestly position in the tribe of Levi from generation to generation, etc. And the idea that Christ picked Apostles to head His Church but expected the church to die out once those Apostles died isn't feasible, and is not commonly held in non-MAD circles. Any historian would tell you how crucial that Apostolic succession of Christianity was to the existence of Christianity today as well as the purity of the teachings. The Protestants have what you claim the early Church had, and they have broken into more than 30,000 denominations. We see nothing of the sort from the early Christians, for although there were always those who wanted to break off, the one thing that held the Church together was the fact that some could legitimately claim Apostolic authority.

Thanks, zippo. :cheers:

Hope you are well :cheers:

 

[BabyChristian]

i will say this, though... for the sake of anyone other than yourself who may read it... (some ppl are more open minded than others...)

there are more cases of pedophilia in the nonCatholic Churches..

in fact the rate there is TWICE as high.. have heard this from numerous sources... all reliable, since i dont read trash... dont watch TV... which is redundant, i know... the reason we dont hear about such things is becaause the media HATES the Catholic Church... shocker, i know... ​

Your reliable sources please.

The difference between RCC and non is this idea of being celibate which to me, would cause secretiveness.

 

[zippy2006]

Solely their perspective, their faith.

I can't make sense of your view elo. It seems obvious to me that it matters whether God has forgiven us or whether we merely subjectively believe we have been forgiven. Forgiveness is inherently something that exists between two parties, it simply doesn't make sense to talk about forgiveness while only referencing one party. You can't forgive yourself for something you did to someone else. :idunno:

Maybe this is one of the reasons Christ left us tangible priests with the power to forgive sins :think:

 

[BabyChristian]

Then why even give the Apostles that power? :idunno:

It was given to those first ones because it was new and people were being taught about intercession. Jesus was/is the intercessor and when he died he gave that power to those that he met and my guess is to help start the church. It doesn't state that anyone could be picked after that. Jesus picked them.


Before Jesus was here Jews asked God and God only for forgiveness.

There are different types of intercession of course.

 

[zippy2006]

It was given to those first ones because it was new and people were being taught about intercession. Jesus was/is the intercessor and when he died he gave that power to those that he met and my guess is to help start the church. It doesn't state that anyone could be picked after that. Jesus picked them.

You're making a lot of assumptions here, and the "it doesn't state" seems like an abuse of the Bible's jurisdiction. We know that Jesus gave the 12 such authority, we know they could pass it on to others as they did to fill Judas' place. The link I gave CM argues that even in the NT we find such power being given to other individuals. We also have writings from the Early Christians stating quite clearly that the Apostles passed down the power to bind and loose and also that the keys were passed down from Peter. If we consider all of these facts the conclusion seems quite clear to me.

Was Paul given that power?

I believe so :idunno:

Before Jesus was here Jews asked God and God only for forgiveness.

Rather they were required to make sin offerings through priests. Catholicism is much more in line with Judaism than Protestantism.