Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[Isatis]

Notice how you said that Christ is the head of the church. Compare that with your church having it's own visible head who you call "Holy Father".

Unlike Catholics who consider the Pope "the Vicar of Christ" and supreme Head of the Church, we believe that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the Head of the Church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sorry, still looking for the text where Christ invested that authroity in the Catholic church. Your problem is that you don't seem to realize that the church is not some centralized local of congregants. Its the body of Christ scattered about. Christ made disciples, and those disciples were commissioned to make other disciples. The body of believers, in short, is a body of disciples, with various talents, lead by Christ. Notice how you said that Christ is the head of the church. Compare that with your church having it's own visible head who you call "Holy Father".

We absolutely know that the Church is universal! Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is His vicar on Earth. When Christ rose, he exhorted Peter to feed His lambs. He conferred authority on all His apostles. And promised them protection from error.

 

[Stryder06]

We absolutely know that the Church is universal! Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is His vicar on Earth. When Christ rose, he exhorted Peter to feed His lambs. He conferred authority on all His apostles. And promised them protection from error.

Here you go with more assumptions based on what your church tells you and not the bible. Christ singled out Peter in that one instance because of Peter's denail of Him. He denied Him three times, so Christ questioned Him three times. This was not some investment of authority. All the disciples were told to make other disciples. How could that happen if they didn't feed (teach) them?

And there is ZERO scriptures supporting this protection from error theory you keep speaking of. You have nothing to support that besides your churches teaching. Same with the Pope being the "vicar" on earth. Your church has assumed authority and convinced you that its supposed to have that authority, based on nothing more than it's own word.

And you guys still skirt the fact that your Pope is called "Holy Father". How does that not cause any alarms to go off?

 

[basketballjohn]

Why would God leave us an infallible book in the hands of fallible teachers and interpreters? That would defeat the whole purpose of an infallible book. It is unreasonable to believe, as most protestants do, that the bible is infallible and the church is not. It is a historical fact the Church canonized the bible. The result of private interpretation has been 40,000 different denominations whose teachings contradict each other, and as a result of so many heretics it is harder for those actually interested in finding the fullness of the truth, to find it.

"Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom 'the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.'(Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in its letter to Pope Leo.) The words of Christ are clear enough: 'If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;'(Mt 15.17.) 'He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;'(Luke 10.16.) 'He who does not believe will be condemned;'(Mk 16.16.) 'He who does not believe is already condemned;'(John 3.18.) 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.'(Luke 11.23.) The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned;'(Ti 3.11.) the Prince of the Apostles calls them 'false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. bringing upon themselves swift destruction." Pope Pius IX

 

[shturt678]

I think that Mr. Luther was about putting forth solis fide, RCC of course is fides cartiate formata. We few non-modern Lutherans don't want to put forth RCC's canon 6 sessio 11, ie, anathama against anyone putting forth solis fide.

Just ol old Jack

Sessio 6, canon 11, or was alls-timers? Just ol' old Jack again.

btw the "universal church' on earth = world wide pretentious worship, unknowingly of course, yet in the Kingdom "outwardly" and are yet Christians for those few that get a little too excited (IIThess.2:4, 10b; Rev.13:14b). There is, however, a Church, outside the "universal church" that are in the Kingdom of God "inwardly" (measured at Rev.11:1 today). Just ol' old Jack also trying to get in "inwardly."

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've found it interesting how you've continued to use more modern translations instead of the KJV, but that's a conversation for another thread.

I use English bibles that are approved for use by Catholics. Sometimes I will quote from the KJV or some other Protestant produced translation that is not approved for use by Catholics but that is an exception rather than the rule. In this case the KJV has taken an approach to the passage that is incorrect. It may be somewhat justifiable in some ways but it is not especially well done so I prefer not to use it in this case. The NRSV seems better. It reads thus:

Now if people say to you, 'Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living, for teaching and for instruction?' surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! (Isaiah 8:19-20)​

This isn't a condemnation against necromancy as much as it is a condemnation against those who try to communicate with the dead altogether. So you're not out of the woods yet sir.

Thank you for your expressed concern but I am not in the woods.

And are you really willing to say that verse 20 has no application outside of dealing with those who speak to the dead? Do you really think you wouldn't be able to tell those who have light in them by testing what they say against the law and the testimony?

Now here I was thinking that you were concerned for the truth as expressed in sacred scripture rather than with how one can twist and bend bible verses to make a doctrine seem 'true' when it is not. I was mistaken I think in believing that your stated purpose was the rule by which this passage would be approached and interpreted.

I ask that you consider the following text as well:
Isa 8:16 - Bind up the testimony. Seal the law among my disciples.

Well, I will look at the passage containing verse 16 of the same chapter that contains verses 19 & 20 but I think we ought to deal more fully with verses 19 & 20 before we swap to a new passage. Do you agree?

Would you say that the testimony is bound up among your church, or that the law has been sealed among you?

Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. See, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isaiah 8:16-18)

Bind…seal…among my disciples: because the prophet’s message was not well received at the time, he wanted to preserve it until the future had vindicated him as God’s true prophet (cf. 30:8–9).

Signs: in the meantime, while awaiting the vindication of his message, Isaiah and his children with their symbolic names stood as a reminder of God’s message to Israel.​

We can return to these verses when we finish with verses 19 & 20

God keep us in the faith of the apostles.

 

[Stryder06]

I use English bibles that are approved for use by Catholics.

Imagine that.

Sometimes I will quote from the KJV or some other Protestant produced translation that is not approved for use by Catholics but that is an exception rather than the rule. In this case the KJV has taken an approach to the passage that is incorrect. It may be somewhat justifiable in some ways but it is not especially well done so I prefer not to use it in this case.

Yeah, it's amazing how this verse rendered in teh King James isn't don't properly.

The NRSV seems better. It reads thus:

Now if people say to you, 'Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living, for teaching and for instruction?' surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! (Isaiah 8:19-20)
​

Alarms should be going off on how this changes the meaning of the text. Like your head should be buzzing.

Thank you for your expressed concern but I am not in the woods. Now here I was thinking that you were concerned for the truth as expressed in sacred scripture rather than with how one can twist and bend bible verses to make a doctrine seem 'true' when it is not. I was mistaken I think in believing that your stated purpose was the rule by which this passage would be approached and interpreted. Well, I will look at the passage containing verse 16 of the same chapter that contains verses 19 & 20 but I think we ought to deal more fully with verses 19 & 20 before we swap to a new passage. Do you agree?

Verses 19 and 20 are easily understood. It's only when you jump into these more modern translations that the waters suddenly become murky.

Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. See, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isaiah 8:16-18)

Again, such a slight change that alters the text radically.

Bind…seal…among my disciples: because the prophet’s message was not well received at the time, he wanted to preserve it until the future had vindicated him as God’s true prophet (cf. 30:8–9).

Signs: in the meantime, while awaiting the vindication of his message, Isaiah and his children with their symbolic names stood as a reminder of God’s message to Israel.
​

We can return to these verses when we finish with verses 19 & 20

God keep us in the faith of the apostles.

Is this from a catholic commentary?

 

[rockytopva]

We absolutely know that the Church is universal! Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is His vicar on Earth. When Christ rose, he exhorted Peter to feed His lambs. He conferred authority on all His apostles. And promised them protection from error.

There are seven churches within the church of Jesus Christ, in which the Catholic church is the fourth. The Catholics uses the Apostolic Succession thing to enforce the Spirit of Jezebel, which is to control and dominate. There were non-Catholic churches both before and after the Catholic church.

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Tim 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. - Revelation 1:20

These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; - Revelation 2:1

Christ Jesus walks in the midst of all seven churches when we are with him in spiritual sincerity.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

I will reply to your post in a single continuous reply unbroken by segments from your post because the segmentation begins to get too messy when two or more additional posts need to be included to properly reflect the context.

The NRSV translation is well regarded by many scholars and it has approval in the Catholic Church for use in private study. Thus,

Now if people say to you, 'Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living, for teaching and for instruction?' surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! (Isaiah 8:19-20)​

is the text with which I intend to deal rather than with the antiquated (and somewhat inaccurate) translation from the KJV.

If your preference is for the KJV that is okay but if you seek to prove some doctrine from the KJV's translation of the passage you ought to hesitate knowing, as you do now, that the translation is at best one possible way to translate the text rather than some indisputably correct translation of it.

As far as I can see there is nothing "murky" about the NRSV text. It is very clear. It treats, as I suggested in my previous post, the passage as a condemnation of the necromancy practised by wizards who "chirp and mutter". The quote in my previous post came from another Catholic approved translation.

Surely…no dawn: reliance on necromancy brings futility.​

Bind up the testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples. I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him. See, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isaiah 8:16-18)

Bind…seal…among my disciples: because the prophet’s message was not well received at the time, he wanted to preserve it until the future had vindicated him as God’s true prophet (cf. 30:8–9).

Signs: in the meantime, while awaiting the vindication of his message, Isaiah and his children with their symbolic names stood as a reminder of God’s message to Israel.​

We can return to these verses when we finish with verses 19 & 20

The comments are taken from the footnotes of my NAB.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There are seven churches within the church of Jesus Christ, in which the Catholic church is the fourth. The Catholics uses the Apostolic Succession thing to enforce the Spirit of Jezebel, which is to control and dominate. There were non-Catholic churches both before and after the Catholic church.

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Tim 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

Christ Jesus walks in the midst of all seven churches when we are with him in spiritual sincerity.

Never heard Thyatira representing the Roman Catholic church.
How do the Jews of today view it?

Revelation 2:18 And to the messenger of the in Thyatira assembly write!

Kindgdom Bible Studies Revelation Series
Thyatira

The church in Thyatira has a longer message delivered to it from Jesus Christ than any of the seven churches, although it is interesting to note that the church there is the smallest of the seven, and the city of Thyatira is the smallest of the seven cities.




.

 

[rockytopva]

Never heard Thyatira representing the Roman Catholic church.

And it amazes me that the Catholic church were not there to protect Constantinople against the Ottomans. It seems that even the Orthodox folk here have forgotten that. I am sure that the Pope lost no sleep over her fall!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Here you go with more assumptions based on what your church tells you and not the bible. Christ singled out Peter in that one instance because of Peter's denail of Him. He denied Him three times, so Christ questioned Him three times. This was not some investment of authority. All the disciples were told to make other disciples. How could that happen if they didn't feed (teach) them?

And there is ZERO scriptures supporting this protection from error theory you keep speaking of. You have nothing to support that besides your churches teaching. Same with the Pope being the "vicar" on earth. Your church has assumed authority and convinced you that its supposed to have that authority, based on nothing more than it's own word.

And you guys still skirt the fact that your Pope is called "Holy Father". How does that not cause any alarms to go off?

It is true that we think Christ queried Peter three times as a means of forgiveness and Peter's repentence. Why is it, though, that Christ could not accomplish more than one thing with his action? He named Peter and said he would build His Church upon Peter. But Jesus was only talking to Peter when he asked "Do you love me more than these?".

I've already shown the Scripture passages which protect the Church from error. You say the Church 'assumed' her role, well, what of it? For every action, there is a reaction. Mary assumed the position of Mother of God after it was conferred on her by angel Gabriel. Faith is the assumtption of belief-we are given the faith, but unless we take it on, it means nothing. So yes, the Church assumed the role that was conferred on it by Jesus. Paul also assumed the role of apostle after Jesus knocked him off his horse.

Jesus made the office of Pope holy. Why wouldn't the one assuming the office take on that title?

 

[Stryder06]

The NRSV translation is well regarded by many scholars and it has approval in the Catholic Church for use in private study.

Not surprised. The meaning of the text is changed by this modern translation so of course your church would approve of its use.

Thus,

Now if people say to you, 'Consult the ghosts and the familiar spirits that chirp and mutter; should not a people consult their gods, the dead on behalf of the living, for teaching and for instruction?' surely, those who speak like this will have no dawn! (Isaiah 8:19-20)
​

is the text with which I intend to deal rather than with the antiquated (and somewhat inaccurate) translation from the KJV.

If your preference is for the KJV that is okay but if you seek to prove some doctrine from the KJV's translation of the passage you ought to hesitate knowing, as you do now, that the translation is at best one possible way to translate the text rather than some indisputably correct translation of it.

You haven't realized yet that I don't subscribe to the "one way of translating" school of thought? Obviously it can be translated in many ways, but the various other translations seem to always change the meaning of key texts that expose false doctrine.

As far as I can see there is nothing "murky" about the NRSV text. It is very clear. It treats, as I suggested in my previous post, the passage as a condemnation of the necromancy practised by wizards who "chirp and mutter". The quote in my previous post came from another Catholic approved translation.

Surely…no dawn: reliance on necromancy brings futility.
​

There very much is a change there. Can you explain why the text you quoted says "should not a people consult their gods?" as opposed to the KJV which says "should not a people consult their God?"

Add to that the statement is changed to so that it puts the focus on those who speak to the dead rather than the standard by which they should be measured.

And either way it goes this translation doesn't help you much as it condemns the practice of speaking to the dead. Your church puts a huge emphasis on that don't they?

The comments are taken from the footnotes of my NAB.

Ok. Thanks.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are seven churches within the church of Jesus Christ, in which the Catholic church is the fourth. The Catholics uses the Apostolic Succession thing to enforce the Spirit of Jezebel, which is to control and dominate. There were non-Catholic churches both before and after the Catholic church.

1. Ephesus – Apostolic – Leaving the first love… “All they which are in Asia be turned away from me…” – II Tim 1:15
2. Smyrna – Martyrs – Persecutions ten days… Foxes Book of Martyrs describes ten Roman persecutions.
3. Pergamos – Orthodox – A pyrgos is a fortified structure – Needed for the dark ages.
4. Thyatira – Catholic – The Spirit of Jezebel is to persecute, control, and to dominate. This spirit can invade any church!
5. Sardis – Protestant – A sardius is a gem, elegant yet hard and rigid. Doctrine in the head, little in the heart.
6. Philadelphia – Methodist – To obtain sanctification was to do so with love.
7. Laodicea – Charismatic – Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. - Revelation 1:20

These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; - Revelation 2:1

Christ Jesus walks in the midst of all seven churches when we are with him in spiritual sincerity.

All of those Churches were part of the diocese of Ephesus, a diocese of the Catholic Church, of which John was the bishop. BTW, every diocese is "a Church" entity, and what ties them to the Catholic Church is their communion with the Bishop of Rome. And it's always been that way.

 

[Isatis]

We absolutely know that the Church is universal! Christ is the head of the Church, the Pope is His vicar on Earth. When Christ rose, he exhorted Peter to feed His lambs. He conferred authority on all His apostles. And promised them protection from error.

So, if Peter was the first Pope, how come Paul rebuked him in Antioch?

 

[Stryder06]

It is true that we think Christ queried Peter three times as a means of forgiveness and Peter's repentence. Why is it, though, that Christ could not accomplish more than one thing with his action? He named Peter and said he would build His Church upon Peter. But Jesus was only talking to Peter when he asked "Do you love me more than these?".

Why would Christ build His church on a fallen man when He could build it upon Himself? When one comes to join the church do they profess belief in Peter, or belief in the true Rock, Jesus the Christ? This line of reasoning is so flawed it's not even funny. And we don't presume that Christ was doing more than what was indicated because assumptions tend to lead to the adoption of error.

I've already shown the Scripture passages which protect the Church from error. You say the Church 'assumed' her role, well, what of it? For every action, there is a reaction.

Pretty sure its "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Not sure how that applies here. You've shown texts that prove that the Spirit would lead the church, which I believe. You've shown text where Christ has promised to never forsake the His people, which I also believe. You have not shown a single text that says that the church would be protected from error. I however in stark contrast have shown you the texts that point out the fact that many from the church would fall into error. We wouldn't have needed to be warned about false teachers if the church was shielded against them. Restricting someone from teaching error is limiting their freedom of choice, which God simply doesn't do.

Faith is the assumtption of belief-we are given the faith, but unless we take it on, it means nothing.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. We can give cause for our faith and it is assured to produce fruit if it is rooted in God's word.

So yes, the Church assumed the role that was conferred on it by Jesus. Paul also assumed the role of apostle after Jesus knocked him off his horse.

The church, as in the body of believers, took up the commission to teach all nations. Paul was appointed an apostle by Christ. The Catholic church was not appointed the arbiter of God's word. It was not given any special authority over the flock. It was not given liberty to appoint a visible "Holy Father" or decide who is or isn't worthy of immulation via "Sainthood".

Jesus made the office of Pope holy. Why wouldn't the one assuming the office take on that title?

When did He do such a thing? Where in the scripture did Christ establish the office of Pope and declare it to be holy along with the one who occupies it's seat?

 

[Stryder06]

So, if Peter was the first Pope, how come Paul rebuked him in Antioch?

Thinking Paul must have missed the memo. Another good question would be how Peter managed to lead others in hypocrisy if he was indeed shielded from error.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
You haven't realized yet that I don't subscribe to the "one way of translating" school of thought? Obviously it can be translated in many ways, but the various other translations seem to always change the meaning of key texts that expose false doctrine.

I am sure that it not only me that sees the above quote as completely begging the question. Surely if the translation in the KJV is one of several possibilities then any doctrine built from the KJV's treatment of the passage (Isaiah 8:19-20) is built on a disputed passage and hence is not a doctrine by which to measure truth and falsity. Unless you have some other passage upon which the build your doctrine you seem to be engaging in circular reasoning by calling the NRSV's translation a failure to expose false doctrine when you depend on the KJV mistranslation as the basis for the doctrine you seem to want to use so you can expose some other (unnamed) doctrine as false.

There very much is a change there. Can you explain why the text you quoted says "should not a people consult their gods?" as opposed to the KJV which says "should not a people consult their God?"

Yes, the explanation is that the text in the source language does not say what the KJV says in English. The NRSV reflects in English what the source language text says.

Add to that the statement is changed to so that it puts the focus on those who speak to the dead rather than the standard by which they should be measured.

The above quote is just more question begging circularity.

And either way it goes this translation doesn't help you much as it condemns the practice of speaking to the dead. Your church puts a huge emphasis on that don't they?

No, we pray to the saints who are alive and with God asking them to pray for us to the Lord our God. I think your view of death (soul sleep) is what causes you to have such an odd view of Catholic teaching. Catholics reject soul sleep as a heresy.

 

[Stryder06]

I am sure that it not only me that sees the above quote as completely begging the question. Surely if the translation in the KJV is one of several possibilities then any doctrine built from the KJV's treatment of the passage (Isaiah 8:19-20) is built on a disputed passage and hence is not a doctrine by which to measure truth and falsity. Unless you have some other passage upon which the build your doctrine you seem to be engaging in circular reasoning by calling the NRSV's translation a failure to expose false doctrine when you depend on the KJV mistranslation as the basis for the doctrine you seem to want to use so you can expose some other (unnamed) doctrine as false.

The KJV isn't a mistranslation. And I'm not building a doctrine here, only using the passages to identify proper doctrine. Surely you can tell the difference. But like I said before I can understand why you would prefer this text rendered as it is. If you look at it through the KJV you have ZERO ground to stand upon. However if you can prove that a modern translation is more "accurate" than somehow you can convince yourself that the KJV translation is not one worth considering.

Yes, the explanation is that the text in the source language does not say what the KJV says in English.

If that helps you sleep better at night, you ride that pony all the way home.

The NRSV reflects in English what the source language text says. The above quote is just more question begging circularity.

You'll have to lump me in with the few who don't believe that to be nearly as accurate as you think.

No, we pray to the saints who are alive and with God asking them to pray for us to the Lord our God. I think your view of death (soul sleep) is what causes you to have such an odd view of Catholic teaching. Catholics reject soul sleep as a heresy.

So the saints you prayed to didn't die? They just were assumed into heaven like Mary?

Catholics view a lot of what we say as heresy because they accept the traditions of man over the word of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Brother Stryder06, I have no idea what 'ground' you think I do not have to stand on. Nor do I have any idea what doctrine you think is false. If this all comes back to your claim that the Catholic faith is wrong and that the Catholic church is in some way incompetent to interpret sacred scripture while you (or your denomination) is competent then it would be you that would need some ground to stand on as the basis for your claims. I am content with the passages previously cited as the 'ground' upon which the church has built her interpretation of the sacred scriptures. Below you can see the passages I cited before,
Matthew 28:18-19; John 20:19-23; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:38-41.

• Jesus came up and spoke to them. He said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you. And look, I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.' (Matthew 28:18-20)
• In the evening of that same day, the first day of the week, the doors were closed in the room where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews. Jesus came and stood among them. He said to them, 'Peace be with you,' and, after saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples were filled with joy at seeing the Lord, and he said to them again, 'Peace be with you. 'As the Father sent me, so am I sending you.' After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone's sins, they are retained. (John 20:19-23)
• but you will receive the power of the Holy Spirit which will come on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judaea and Samaria, and indeed to earth's remotest end.' (Acts 1:8)
• 'You must repent,' Peter answered, 'and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise that was made is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself.' He spoke to them for a long time using many other arguments, and he urged them, 'Save yourselves from this perverse generation.' They accepted what he said and were baptised. That very day about three thousand were added to their number. (Acts 2:38-41)