Absolution

[ViaCrucis]

What were they doing exactly in Acts 2:44-45, when you understand it literally?

If you are not doing what they are doing, then it is the same as admitting that Acts 2:44-45 is not applicable to you.

There is nothing wrong in admitting that, just as you have zero problems admitting that Genesis 6:14 is not applicable to you as well.

You will not even bother to say, Genesis 6:14 is a command to me to obey as well, but yada yada yada

Acts 2:44-45 is a description, not a prescription. You might as well ask if I apply Acts 28:12 to myself or not. That's simply the wrong way to read the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

Acts 2:44-45 is a description, not a prescription. You might as well ask if I apply Acts 28:12 to myself or not. That's simply the wrong way to read the text.

-CryptoLutheran

Why are you going around in circles?

The prescription is given in Luke 12:32-33.

Why is the difficulty of admitting that neither of those 2 should apply to you, if you are not following what they say literally?

You have no issues doing that for Genesis 6:14 correct?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why are you going around in circles?

The prescription is given in Luke 12:32-33.

Why is the difficulty of admitting that neither of those 2 should apply to you, if you are not following what they say literally?

You have no issues doing that for Genesis 6:14 correct?

If you want to argue it is prescriptive, then you are going to have to reconcile that with the Acts 5 passage I provided earlier.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

If you want to argue it is prescriptive, then you are going to have to reconcile that with the Acts 5 passage I provided earlier.

-CryptoLutheran

That Acts 5 passage has nothing to do with my point, you are trying to deflect.

But since you asked

Baranabas sold a piece of land, gave everything to the Acts assembly, and got praise and other benefits from it.

A&S wanted to get a similar reception but chose to lie to God and the assembly, for a piece of land they sold, they kept some of the money for themselves.

Their sin came from lying to God.

You cannot use that example to argue that Luke 12:32-33 is not to be taken literally. Its a separate point.

My point is that Luke 12:32-33 is prescriptive, but just like Genesis 6:14, we are not the intended recipient of that command.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You cannot use that example to argue that Luke 12:32-33 is not to be taken literally. Its a separate point.

My point is that Luke 12:32-33 is prescriptive, but just like Genesis 6:14, we are not the intended recipient of that command.

Who do you claim the little flock is?

 

[Guojing]

Who do you claim the little flock is?

True Israel, the circumcised members of Israel who believe Christ as their Messiah (Romans 9:6)

We gentiles were still excluded from Christ during Jesus's first coming (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24, Romans 15:8, Ephesians 2:11-12), so we cannot be that little flock.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

True Israel, the circumcised members of Israel who believe Christ as their Messiah (Romans 9:6)

We gentiles were still excluded from Christ during Jesus's first coming (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 15:24, Romans 15:8, Ephesians 2:11-12), so we cannot be that little flock.

I see. and where does this teaching come from that you're propagating here? Please don't say it comes from the Bible. Clearly there is some line of teaching that you are following, those verses and passages have been read by Christians for 2000 years, and the teaching that you brought is not the teaching that they have held for those 2000 years.

 

[ozso]

In Luke 18:13-14 Jesus tells us of a man who called out directly to God and was justified.

In other words Jesus says that we can go directly to God and receive absolution through sincere humble confession of sin directly to Him.

 

[Guojing]

I see. and where does this teaching come from that you're propagating here? Please don't say it comes from the Bible. Clearly there is some line of teaching that you are following, those verses and passages have been read by Christians for 2000 years, and the teaching that you brought is not the teaching that they have held for those 2000 years.

I have given you so many scripture passages in that post.

You can pick any one and share your "alternative" interpretation, and we can discuss which interpretation makes more sense.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In Luke 18:13-14 Jesus tells us of a man who called out directly to God and was justified.

In other words Jesus says that we can go directly to God and receive absolution through sincere humble confession of sin directly to Him.

Technically, you don't need a priest to give you absolution, it's just something that is lovely to receive, after you have confessed.

 

[ozso]

I have given you so many scripture passages in that post.

You can pick any one and share your "alternative" interpretation, and we can discuss which interpretation makes more sense.

That wasn't an answer to the question asked. Are you keeping the answer hidden?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I have given you so many scripture passages in that post.

You can pick any one and share your "alternative" interpretation, and we can discuss which interpretation makes more sense.

Not really. That's not how it works. In Catholic teaching it's the consensus of the early church fathers, or the formal teaching of the church that has top value when interpreting scripture. And individual's opinions or a group opinions are interesting and it's interesting to explore a passage and see what related passages there are, and ferret out the meaning of words, and decide what the passage may be teaching. But ultimately the authority for teaching is in the hands of the church, and groups however faithful and prayerful they may be, should not attempt to usurp that role.

 

[Guojing]

Not really. That's not how it works. In Catholic teaching it's the consensus of the early church fathers, or the formal teaching of the church that has top value when interpreting scripture. And individual's opinions or a group opinions are interesting and it's interesting to explore a passage and see what related passages there are, and ferret out the meaning of words, and decide what the passage may be teaching. But ultimately the authority for teaching is in the hands of the church, and groups however faithful and prayerful they may be, should not attempt to usurp that role.

Well, if I provide the scripture, and you don't even want to disagree with how I interpret them as meaning, then what do you expect me to do next?

 

[Guojing]

That wasn't an answer to the question asked. Are you keeping the answer hidden?

He is claiming I did not learn from the bible when I provide so many scripture verses.

And he is not even willing to discuss how he understand those verses, what do you expect me to do?

 

[ozso]

Technically, you don't need a priest to give you absolution, it's just something that is lovely to receive, after you have confessed.

I agree with that. I don't see going to confession or confessing to someone in general being something scripture speaks against.

The only problem of course is if one was relying solely on a person for absolution, like say a cult member would rely on their leader rather than actually relying on God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well, if I provide the scripture, and you don't even want to disagree with how I interpret them as meaning, then what do you expect me to do next?

Check what the Catholic Church teaches about the passages and doctrines you are examining.

 

[ozso]

He is claiming I did not learn from the bible when I provide so many scripture verses.

And he is not even willing to discuss how he understand those verses, what do you expect me to do?

The question is where or from whom did you learn to interpret scripture that particular unorthodox way?

 

[Guojing]

The question is where or from whom did you learn to interpret scripture that particular unorthodox way?

I interpret Jesus words literally.

Is that considered unorthodox?

 

[Guojing]

Check what the Catholic Church teaches about the passages and doctrines you are examining.

Jesus is not such a poor speaker that he cannot say exactly what he means.

If those scripture passages tell us literally that gentiles are not part of his ministry in his first coming, why do you need someone else to understand his words?

 

[ozso]

I interpret Jesus words literally.

Is that considered unorthodox?

You're not the only one here who delivers the two gospels Paul’s Gospel vs Jesus’ Gospel gosple of the kingdom other sheep little flock doctrine. It was started by Ethelbert William Bullinger 1837 – 1913. It's known as Hyperdispensationalism and Bullingerism. Just in case you didn't know.