Absolution

[Xeno.of.athens]

Then stop saying "I don't know where you've got that belief from."

The truth is you know, I used those scripture passages a number of times already.

You just refuse to read them and understand them literally.

It is not that I refuse to take those passages literally. The truth is, those passages were never intended to mean what you claim they mean. Jesus mission was to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. He was to call God's people back to faith in God. They refused. St Paul makes mention of their refusal in Romans chapter 9. In chapters 10 and 11 he continues to point out Israel's failings. Jesus own words at the end of Matthew's gospel and at the beginning of the acts of the apostles, make it clear that the gospel is intended for the whole world. And since Jesus spoke both the words that you quote and the words that I've just alluded to, it follows that the point of view that you are expressing is inconsistent with the message of Christ. For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has presented the message of Christ as a message intended for all humanity. It would be unwise for me to follow your interpretation above that of the church. So I will not follow you interpretation.

 

[ozso]

Then stop saying "I don't know where you've got that belief from."

The truth is you know, I used those scripture passages a number of times already.

You just refuse to read them and understand them literally.

It's not reading them literally though. It's reading into them what you're been taught to believe. It's what's known as eisegesis, which is an interpretation of scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

 

[ozso]

Well so much for confession and forgiveness I have to note that down and let my local priest know he's out of a job.

Actually he'd just be put of one aspect of his job. An aspect that wasn't put into practice until the 11th century.

 

[Guojing]

It is not that I refuse to take those passages literally. The truth is, those passages were never intended to mean what you claim they mean. Jesus mission was to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. He was to call God's people back to faith in God. They refused. St Paul makes mention of their refusal in Romans chapter 9. In chapters 10 and 11 he continues to point out Israel's failings. Jesus own words at the end of Matthew's gospel and at the beginning of the acts of the apostles, make it clear that the gospel is intended for the whole world. And since Jesus spoke both the words that you quote and the words that I've just alluded to, it follows that the point of view that you are expressing is inconsistent with the message of Christ. For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has presented the message of Christ as a message intended for all humanity. It would be unwise for me to follow your interpretation above that of the church. So I will not follow you interpretation.

Since you agreed to finally use Matthew 15:24, that is a good start.

We were discussing who belong to the little flock in Luke 12:32-33.

Given what you read in Matthew 15:24, would you agree, before the cross, Jesus could not be referring to gentiles in that little flock in that passage?

 

[Guojing]

It's not reading them literally though. It's reading into them what you're been taught to believe. It's what's known as eisegesis, which is an interpretation of scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

As I said, Jesus is not such a poor speaker that he cannot say what he means and mean what he said.

How difficult is it to understand what he said in Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 15:24?

You don't even need to interpret those words, nor require whoever that Bulliger guy to teach you what Jesus meant.

 

[ozso]

As I said, Jesus is not such a poor speaker that he cannot say what he means and mean what he said.

People can be poor interpreters of what Jesus said and meant though.

How difficult is it to understand what he said in Matthew 10:5 and Matthew 15:24?

The issue with Matthew 15:24 is Jesus didn't stop there and walk away from the Canaanite woman, but instead Jesus included her. So Matthew 15:24-28 is actually about Jesus including Gentiles who had faith in Him. Not excluding but including them in with the lost sheep of Israel.

This is seen again throughout the entire chapter of John 4 where Jusus meets the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4:39 says that many Samaritans became believers in Jesus being the Messiah.

So there you have an example of Jesus going out to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel and many Gentiles becoming believers because of it.

Now I don't necessarily disagree with what you said about John 20:23. But I do disagree with the hyper-dispensationalist spin you're putting on biblical interpretation.

My guess is you got drawn into Bullinger's hyper-dispansationalism without knowing it.
ViaCrucis recognized it as such as well early on.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Since you agreed to finally use Matthew 15:24, that is a good start.

We were discussing who belong to the little flock in Luke 12:32-33.

Given what you read in Matthew 15:24, would you agree, before the cross, Jesus could not be referring to gentiles in that little flock in that passage?

No, I would not agree.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Actually he'd just be put of one aspect of his job. An aspect that wasn't put into practice until the 11th century.

Confession and absolution were already present when James wrote his letter in the New Testament

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's not reading them literally though. It's reading into them what you're been taught to believe. It's what's known as eisegesis, which is an interpretation of scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

It's a dangerous practise that has risen once and then again and again and again. And it deceives people.

 

[ozso]

Confession and absolution were already present when James wrote his letter in the New Testament

That's the Catholic interpretation James 5:16. But it's not really James saying confess your sins to a bishop to receive absolution. If James actually did say that, then virtually no one would debate the practice, as it would have clearly and inarguably been sated. But it wasn't.

Personally to me the debate ends with you saying "Technically, you don't need a priest to give you absolution, it's just something that is lovely to receive, after you have confessed".

You want to and think you should confess your sins to a priest? I think that's perfectly acceptable and commendable as I'm sure it's quite edifying.

 

[ozso]

It's a dangerous practise that has risen once and then again and again and again. And it deceives people.

All or at least the lion's share of it started in the 19th century. I think it's noteworthy that most Protestants to this day call most of it unorthodox and heresy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

All or at least the lion's share of it started in the 19th century. I think it's noteworthy that most Protestants to this day call most of it unorthodox and heresy.

It's true that some protestants dislike dispensationalism now but some, perhaps many, still like it.

 

[ozso]

It's true that some protestants dislike dispensationalism now but some, perhaps many, still like it.

I was talking about eisegesigetical doctrines as a whole. As far as disponsationalism goes, most consider hyper or ultra disponsationalism unorthodox or heresy.

 

[ozso]

You don't even need to interpret those words, nor require whoever that Bulliger guy to teach you what Jesus meant.

In modern times Les Feldick proliferated the Paul’s Gospel vs Jesus’ Gospel - Gospel of Grace vs Gospel of the Law - Gospel to the Jews vs the Gospel to the Gentiles - Gospel of the Kingdom vs Paul’s Gospel etc teaching on the radio, websites, YouTube etc. But it's also tuaght in various stand alone non-denominational churches.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's true that some protestants dislike dispensationalism now but some, perhaps many, still like it.

Dispensationalism is popular in some Protestant circles, especially among American Evangelicals. Hyper-Dispensationalism (there are several kinds, including Bullingerism) is very rare, and is disliked even among other Dispensationalists.

I personally consider all forms of Dispensationalism problematic. The hyper varieties especially so.

Calling these things problematic, unorthodox, or heretical is, I'd argue, actually being quite charitable. I'd insist on much harsher language.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

No, I would not agree.

Okay you have a different interpretation then.

But at least now you know how I came to that belief. That is good enough.

 

[Guojing]

Dispensationalism is popular in some Protestant circles, especially among American Evangelicals. Hyper-Dispensationalism (there are several kinds, including Bullingerism) is very rare, and is disliked even among other Dispensationalists.

I personally consider all forms of Dispensationalism problematic. The hyper varieties especially so.

Calling these things problematic, unorthodox, or heretical is, I'd argue, actually being quite charitable. I'd insist on much harsher language.

-CryptoLutheran

If you don't build an ark now, even though God told Noah to do so in Genesis 6:14, you are being dispensational , regardless on whether you are aware or not.

Likewise with regards to physical circumcision with Genesis 17:14

And likewise with not obeying Luke 12:32-33

 

[Guojing]

In modern times Les Feldick proliferated the Paul’s Gospel vs Jesus’ Gospel - Gospel of Grace vs Gospel of the Law - Gospel to the Jews vs the Gospel to the Gentiles - Gospel of the Kingdom vs Paul’s Gospel etc teaching on the radio, websites, YouTube etc. But it's also tuaght in various stand alone non-denominational churches.

Its all about reading scripture and understanding the words literally.

As I said, Jesus is not a poor speaker, he says what he meant and meant what he said.

 

[Guojing]

The issue with Matthew 15:24 is Jesus didn't stop there and walk away from the Canaanite woman, but instead Jesus included her. So Matthew 15:24-28 is actually about Jesus including Gentiles who had faith in Him. Not excluding but including them in with the lost sheep of Israel.

If you read the Mark account, Jesus gave her the blessing she requested, because she blessed Israel by submitting to them as a puppy Mark 7:28-29.

She got her blessing thru the nation of Israel, which is what God promised Abraham that would happen, in various passages found in Genesis.

Again, you just need to read and understand scripture literally, and everything becomes clear.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Okay you have a different interpretation then.

But at least now you know how I came to that belief. That is good enough.

Yes, now, I know that you came to the belief through a heretical source that is essentially ultra-dispensationalist. That's enough for me to know that I am far better off not taking the matter seriously. Nor discussing it any further.