Who is the woman in Revelations 12?

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
No, I am Catholic, not Orthodox.


Actually, that is not true.

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:23 - 26

Judas committed suicide so now there were only eleven apostles.Our Lord was with them for over a month between His resurrection and ascension, and He never told them about finding a replacement for him. But after his ascension, Peter told them that need to replace Judas with someone else. This was proper for Peter to do, since Jesus said to said whatever he binds on earth be will be bound in heaven. The apostles chose two, and then they cast lots - which is like the rolling of the dice. No matter! The Holy Spirit was guiding the whole process. And the lot feel to Mathias.

Now, I have not ever known a Protestant who questioned Matthias' apostleship, even though Jesus himself never selected him. Matthias was selected by the apostles, at the direction of Peter. Now, if they had the authority to select someone to replace Judas, it is logical that when they started dying off, they would have selected those to replace them as well.

I grant you this is not much, but there are doctrine that both of us believe that have even smaller support from the Bible than this one. What day do you honor the Sabbath? Is it Saturday or Sunday? My guess is that you honor Sunday. But the Ten Commandments says that we should honor the Sabbath on the seventh day, which is Saturday. Now, the rationale for worship on Sunday is that this is the day that Jesus rose from dead. But there is no verse in the Bible that allows for that! It is based on Church tradition, the Church changed it to Sunday. If the Church is not infallible then we should go back and honor Saturday instead of Sunday. Also, I think you, along with me, are a Trinitarian. You would believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. BUT there is no verse in the Bible that states that there are three persons in one God. In fact, the word "Trinity" is no where to be found in the Bible! Protestants pick and choose which doctrines have to be supported from Bible and which do not.



At the time of Jesus, there were two texts of the Jewish Bible, the Masoretic (or Hebrew) Text and the Greek Septuagint. Both were authoritative. In fact, Jesus and the NT writers quoted mostly from the Greek Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. For instance Isaiah 7:14 says "Behold, a young woman gave birth to son" in the Masoretic text but the Greek Septuagint say "Behold, a virgin gave birth to a son". The Jews had a conference after the time of Christ and decided that the Masoretic text would be the only authoritative text, probably because the embarrassment of verses like Isaiah 7:14.

Now these Deuterocanonicals were in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Masoretic text. So this was in the Christian Bible up until the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to rejected the Deutercanonicals because there was a passage in 2 Maccabees that strongly supported Purgatory. So the Reformers rejected Deutercanonicals, arguing that since the Jews rejected them that we should, too. But they neglected to point out that the Jews only rejected Greek Septuagint, which included the Deutercanonicals, after they had rejected Christ. So why should we take the Jews, who rejected Christ, over centuries of Christianity in determining the canon of the OT?




Well, Orthodoxy have married priests. However, their bishops can be married. Catholics do not have married priests. But since I am Catholic, I deal with this.

Celibacy is in the Bible. Most of the OT prophets were celibates. John the Baptist, Paul, and our Lord were celibates. In the Apostle John's vision, he sees in the future men so dedicated to God that they "did not defile themselves with women"(Revelation 14:4). In Cor 7, Paul writes that for Lord's sake it would better to be celibate but he allowed marriage if it was too difficult for person to remain celibate. But still the ideal was celibacy. The Church allowed priest to marry for the first thousand years. But many men and women chose celibacy in order to get closer to Christ.

The Church changed this in 1076 AD. Just as the apostles had the right on their own to replace Judas, their replacements had the authority to determine the qualifications of a priest. I noticed that you called them clergy qualifications. Actually, it was only some in the clergy. Deacons, even to this day, can be married. It is only the priests and the bishops that are required to be remain celibate. And that is only in one rite, the Latin Rite. But a deacon can be married, and a deacon does what a Protestant minister does. So if a married man feels called to preach sermons, baptize people, and marry people, he can be become a deacon. He cannot become a priest, which I doubt you believe is a valid calling in the clergy. So you are criticizing the Catholic Church for not allowing married priests but your church does not allow priests at all.


Actually, I do not think the Orthodox believe in Purgatory, but since we Catholics do I will address this.

Is this purification complete in this life? If yes, then that means you would have to believe in sinless perfection. In this life, all of us Christians would reach being totally pure before we die and go to heaven. If no, and there is no intermediate purification process before we are in heaven. That would mean that that there would be many impure souls in heaven.

I am sure you agree that we none of us reach perfection in this and yet once we are in heaven we will be perfect. So there has to be some sort of purification process after we die but before we enter heaven - even if the purification is instantaneous. All of will go from being impure to being pure. The only issues are how long will this purification will take and will this purification will entail some pain or deprivation. I would say it would take some kind of pain or deprivation based on 1 Corinthians 3:

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Paul wrote that every one adds to the foundation of Jesus Christ. If his work does not survive, he will suffer loss but only as one who escapes through the flames.It is not just his work will go through flames. It is he himself going through the flames. That is Purgatory.

And Paul wrote this in 2 Cor 5:10:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

We must ALL appear before the judgement seat of Christ - non-Christians AND Christians. Paul wrote "WE", including his Christian readers and even himself. Now, Evangelicals try to argue that Christians are only judged by how many rewards they will receive. But Paul writes that we will be judged on what we did WHETHER GOOD OR BAD! That means the recompense could be a reward, or it could be a punishment.
Orthodox bishops can't marry, they have to be celibate or widowers.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
1) What do you think "laying hands" mean?
[/QUOTE]

Leviticus 1:1 Then the Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of animals from the herd or the flock. 3 If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer it, a male without defect; he shall offer it at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord. 4 He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf. 5 He shall slay the young bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer up the blood and sprinkle the blood around on the altar that is at the doorway of the tent of meeting. 6 He shall then skin the burnt offering and cut it into its pieces. 7 The sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. 8 Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, the head and the suet over the wood which is on the fire that is on the altar. 9 Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer up in smoke all of it on the altar for a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the Lord.

Laying your hand on an animal is the first thing you do before you kill it.[/QUOTE]
1 Timothy 4:14 New King James Version (NKJV) 14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,436
11,982
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,763.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Would people please check that their quote tags have not been messed up before they post, and if you quote someone else who has messed up quote tags, please edit them so that your own post doesn't get messed up.
Thank you in advance.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That is your personal opinion and of course it is slated because you are an Orthodox believer.

However, there are many things that are not Biblical which the Orthodox church supports.

1. Apostolic succession.

There is NOT ONE single Scripture that supports such a doctrine.

2. Bible Composition.

Orthodox church Accepts the 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books, but also a collection of books not found in the original Hebrew Bible. These are known as Deuterocanonicals or a second canon of scripture.

3. Clergy Qualifications.

Bishops must be celibate.

4. Purgatory.

An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

So, to say that Orthodoxy is "better" is a personal opinion because it is not rooted in the Word of God.
1) What do you think "laying hands" mean?
2) Nothing wrong with Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon or 1 Esdras.
3) Nothing wrong with that, priests can marry anyways.
4) Orthodox don't believe in Purgatory.[/QUOTE]

1).
It is an ACTION when someone places their hands on you, however, there is no biblical mandate requiring the physical laying on of hands for a particular spiritual ministry. We need to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself. Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God's Word.

2).
Those are "extra" Bible products that are not in any way inspired. With only a little bit of work anyone can understand why the books of the Apocrypha were rejected. Because their fictitious teachings endorse false doctrines of church, such as prayers for dead, false cures, virtue in a burning heart of a fish to drive devils away, alms deeds delivering from death and sin, salvation by works.

3).
No sir, that is incorrect. Catholic priests are not allowed to marry.
The reason nuns and priests in the Catholic church do not marry is because it is the act of ultimate resistance of temptation and a completely giving your life over and dedicated your life only to the religion of Cathosolism. You may have noticed that priests are often caught with sexual crimes. That is the reason why.

4).
Synod. Flor. pp. 33, 35.
"When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, I am Catholic, not Orthodox.


Actually, that is not true.

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:23 - 26

Judas committed suicide so now there were only eleven apostles.Our Lord was with them for over a month between His resurrection and ascension, and He never told them about finding a replacement for him. But after his ascension, Peter told them that need to replace Judas with someone else. This was proper for Peter to do, since Jesus said to said whatever he binds on earth be will be bound in heaven. The apostles chose two, and then they cast lots - which is like the rolling of the dice. No matter! The Holy Spirit was guiding the whole process. And the lot feel to Mathias.

Now, I have not ever known a Protestant who questioned Matthias' apostleship, even though Jesus himself never selected him. Matthias was selected by the apostles, at the direction of Peter. Now, if they had the authority to select someone to replace Judas, it is logical that when they started dying off, they would have selected those to replace them as well.

I grant you this is not much, but there are doctrine that both of us believe that have even smaller support from the Bible than this one. What day do you honor the Sabbath? Is it Saturday or Sunday? My guess is that you honor Sunday. But the Ten Commandments says that we should honor the Sabbath on the seventh day, which is Saturday. Now, the rationale for worship on Sunday is that this is the day that Jesus rose from dead. But there is no verse in the Bible that allows for that! It is based on Church tradition, the Church changed it to Sunday. If the Church is not infallible then we should go back and honor Saturday instead of Sunday. Also, I think you, along with me, are a Trinitarian. You would believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - three persons in one God. BUT there is no verse in the Bible that states that there are three persons in one God. In fact, the word "Trinity" is no where to be found in the Bible! Protestants pick and choose which doctrines have to be supported from Bible and which do not.



At the time of Jesus, there were two texts of the Jewish Bible, the Masoretic (or Hebrew) Text and the Greek Septuagint. Both were authoritative. In fact, Jesus and the NT writers quoted mostly from the Greek Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. For instance Isaiah 7:14 says "Behold, a young woman gave birth to son" in the Masoretic text but the Greek Septuagint say "Behold, a virgin gave birth to a son". The Jews had a conference after the time of Christ and decided that the Masoretic text would be the only authoritative text, probably because the embarrassment of verses like Isaiah 7:14.

Now these Deuterocanonicals were in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Masoretic text. So this was in the Christian Bible up until the Reformation. The Reformers wanted to rejected the Deutercanonicals because there was a passage in 2 Maccabees that strongly supported Purgatory. So the Reformers rejected Deutercanonicals, arguing that since the Jews rejected them that we should, too. But they neglected to point out that the Jews only rejected Greek Septuagint, which included the Deutercanonicals, after they had rejected Christ. So why should we take the Jews, who rejected Christ, over centuries of Christianity in determining the canon of the OT?




Well, Orthodoxy have married priests. However, their bishops can be married. Catholics do not have married priests. But since I am Catholic, I deal with this.

Celibacy is in the Bible. Most of the OT prophets were celibates. John the Baptist, Paul, and our Lord were celibates. In the Apostle John's vision, he sees in the future men so dedicated to God that they "did not defile themselves with women"(Revelation 14:4). In Cor 7, Paul writes that for Lord's sake it would better to be celibate but he allowed marriage if it was too difficult for person to remain celibate. But still the ideal was celibacy. The Church allowed priest to marry for the first thousand years. But many men and women chose celibacy in order to get closer to Christ.

The Church changed this in 1076 AD. Just as the apostles had the right on their own to replace Judas, their replacements had the authority to determine the qualifications of a priest. I noticed that you called them clergy qualifications. Actually, it was only some in the clergy. Deacons, even to this day, can be married. It is only the priests and the bishops that are required to be remain celibate. And that is only in one rite, the Latin Rite. But a deacon can be married, and a deacon does what a Protestant minister does. So if a married man feels called to preach sermons, baptize people, and marry people, he can be become a deacon. He cannot become a priest, which I doubt you believe is a valid calling in the clergy. So you are criticizing the Catholic Church for not allowing married priests but your church does not allow priests at all.


Actually, I do not think the Orthodox believe in Purgatory, but since we Catholics do I will address this.

Is this purification complete in this life? If yes, then that means you would have to believe in sinless perfection. In this life, all of us Christians would reach being totally pure before we die and go to heaven. If no, and there is no intermediate purification process before we are in heaven. That would mean that that there would be many impure souls in heaven.

I am sure you agree that we none of us reach perfection in this and yet once we are in heaven we will be perfect. So there has to be some sort of purification process after we die but before we enter heaven - even if the purification is instantaneous. All of will go from being impure to being pure. The only issues are how long will this purification will take and will this purification will entail some pain or deprivation. I would say it would take some kind of pain or deprivation based on 1 Corinthians 3:

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Paul wrote that every one adds to the foundation of Jesus Christ. If his work does not survive, he will suffer loss but only as one who escapes through the flames.It is not just his work will go through flames. It is he himself going through the flames. That is Purgatory.

And Paul wrote this in 2 Cor 5:10:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

We must ALL appear before the judgement seat of Christ - non-Christians AND Christians. Paul wrote "WE", including his Christian readers and even himself. Now, Evangelicals try to argue that Christians are only judged by how many rewards they will receive. But Paul writes that we will be judged on what we did WHETHER GOOD OR BAD! That means the recompense could be a reward, or it could be a punishment.

1. Actually, your argument using Matthias is incorrect. It is what the Catholic church has told you to say but it is not correct. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders such as Judas with godly and faithful leaders such as Matthias.

I say to you again that nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church.

You posed a lot of questions in one paragraph and if you would like to ask them ONE AT A TIME I would be glad to respond but I can not follow them as you posted.

I will however explain to you why the Apocrypha was rejected.

There are several reason actually. The first Reason why sixty-six books of Bible harmonize is that same divine mind inspired each writer. If, for example, John had written something that did not agree with works of Moses, we would be obliged to reject Gospel and epistles of John, and the Revelation.

The First five books of Bible are criterion for all other works claiming inspiration. If doctrines of Apocrypha do not in every instance agree with what Moses wrote, they should find no place in the canon of the Inspired Word.

The real time facts are that the Apocryphal books teach doctrines contrary to what Moses and other prophets have written. For this reason they were not placed among other books of Old Testament when canonicity took place in days of Ezra.

Also, neither Christ nor apostles quoted from books of Apocrypha. Saint Jerome rejected them from his Latin Bible because they were not written in Hebrew language.

Now, the ONLY reason you accept them is because the Catholic church has told you to do so. So the the question has to be......Why does the Catholic Church continue to hold on to these uninspired writings ?

That is also a very easy question to answer. It is because their fictitious teachings endorse false doctrines of church, such as prayers for dead, false cures, virtue in a burning heart of a fish to drive devils away, alms deeds delivering from death and sin, salvation by works.


Now as for celibacy. The only reason YOU are accepting it is because the Catholic church told you to do so because the Bible says the opposite. So you are obeying the commands of men over God who said in 1 Timothy that a bishop HAD TO BE MARRIED.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach'.

As for Purgatory.

The Scriptures you posted from Corinthians have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Catholic false teaching of Purgatory.

Those Scriptures are all about "REWARDS" that are to be given to believers after the resurrection.

The Protestant church has objected to the doctrine of Purgatory by stating that this teaching denies the sufficiency and full efficacy of Christ's atoning sacrifice. To say that our sins are expiated by our suffering is an insult to the cross of Christ since it says that the cross was not sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. It says that we must suffer--that we must do something to have our sins fully cleansed.

There are no sins left for purgatory to cleanse because it was all done by Jesus on the cross. This is why Jesus said, "It is finished!" (John 19:30). In Greek the term, "it is finished," is "tetelestai." It was a term used in legal contexts to state that a debt had been paid in full. "Papyri receipts for taxes have been recovered with the word tetelestai written across them, meaning "paid in full." (Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1983, 1985).

Therefore, there is no need for purgatory.

Nevertheless, because the Protestants appeal so much to the Bible, the Catholics have sought to find the doctrine of Purgatory within its pages. One such verse is 1 Cor. 3:15.

"If any mans work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire."

As with any verse in the Bible, to fully understand it, we must look at it in its biblical context. Following is 1 Cor. 3:10-15

"According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each mans work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each mans work. 14If any mans work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any mans work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire."

The context speaks of Paul having planted the Corinthian church, and that another person was building upon that work: verse 6 says, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." Paul goes on to say that unless a person builds upon the foundation of Jesus, his work will be burned up the in the day of judgment (v. 13). See also, 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 5:2).

Paul is simply using the terms that are familiar to the people of the time. Fire was the tool used to purify metals and to get rid of that which was unwanted--the dross. So, too, on the day when our works are examined, the fire of judgment will both purify and remove. This will not affect our salvation, but it will affect our rewards. The theme of fire used as purification is also found in 2 Pet. 3:10-13. But this is not talking about becoming saved or staying saved.

1 Cor. 3:15 does not teach purgatory as a place we go to in order to have some of our sins cleansed from us. It teaches that even though the person is justified by faith and cannot face damnation, his works will, however, be judged on "that day."
Purgatory and 1 Cor. 3:15 | CARM.org
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
1 Timothy 4:14 New King James Version (NKJV) 14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

Also true. Laying on of hands has many meanings in scripture, largely dictated by context. In I Timothy 4:14 there has been much debate concerning what gift was given to Timothy by the laying on of the hands by the presbyters. It could have been any of the spiritual gifts described in Romans 12 or I Corinthians 12, but the fact is that we simply do not know with any certainty.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Would people please check that their quote tags have not been messed up before they post, and if you quote someone else who has messed up quote tags, please edit them so that your own post doesn't get messed up.
Thank you in advance.

Thank you for pointing that out. I also noticed the problem.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
1) What do you think "laying hands" mean?
2) Nothing wrong with Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon or 1 Esdras.
3) Nothing wrong with that, priests can marry anyways.
4) Orthodox don't believe in Purgatory.

1).
It is an ACTION when someone places their hands on you, however, there is no biblical mandate requiring the physical laying on of hands for a particular spiritual ministry. We need to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself. Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God's Word.

2).
Those are "extra" Bible products that are not in any way inspired. With only a little bit of work anyone can understand why the books of the Apocrypha were rejected. Because their fictitious teachings endorse false doctrines of church, such as prayers for dead, false cures, virtue in a burning heart of a fish to drive devils away, alms deeds delivering from death and sin, salvation by works.

3).
No sir, that is incorrect. Catholic priests are not allowed to marry.
The reason nuns and priests in the Catholic church do not marry is because it is the act of ultimate resistance of temptation and a completely giving your life over and dedicated your life only to the religion of Cathosolism. You may have noticed that priests are often caught with sexual crimes. That is the reason why.

4).
Synod. Flor. pp. 33, 35.
"When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward.

Please note that the poster you are replying to is Orthodox and not Catholic. Orthodox priests can be married, but Orthodox bishops cannot be married. The Orthodox Church does not believe in Purgatory.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I have been perplexed that a Catholic poster here has been defining Orthodox praxis. I hope I never presume to do so.

Oops. I now discover that I have done so in the previous post and hope that my information is accurate. If not, please feel free to correct me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Please note that the poster you are replying to is Orthodox and not Catholic. Orthodox priests can be married, but Orthodox bishops cannot be married. The Orthodox Church does not believe in Purgatory.

How goofy is that.

Priests can be married but bishops cannot be married.

The Scriptures say...…….."A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

As I understand that Scripture, it applies to elders/deacons/bishops/pastors. In other words it refers to all "Overseers" of the church without separating the function they have or the position they have.

The "context" demands that A minister of religion, who has the charge or oversight of any Christian church is considered a Bishop/pastor/elder/deacon.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Also true. Laying on of hands has many meanings in scripture, largely dictated by context. In I Timothy 4:14 there has been much debate concerning what gift was given to Timothy by the laying on of the hands by the presbyters. It could have been any of the spiritual gifts described in Romans 12 or I Corinthians 12, but the fact is that we simply do not know with any certainty.

You are correct, as usual!

As best as I can determine, laying on of hands is a sign of "Agreement".

I think it would be helpful to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself.

It is similar to the "anointing of oil" in James. Some have understood that to mean that there is healing ability in that process and there is none. The word in the Greek in James is the same word Jesus used when He told someone to "Anoint" himself with oil. It means to put some oil on your hair and brush it so that you will look presentable.

Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God's Word.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
How goofy is that.

Priests can be married but bishops cannot be married.

The Scriptures say...…….."A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach".

As I understand that Scripture, it applies to elders/deacons/bishops/pastors. In other words it refers to all "Overseers" of the church without separating the function they have or the position they have.

The "context" demands that A minister of religion, who has the charge or oversight of any Christian church is considered a Bishop/pastor/elder/deacon.

I agree that it is a very peculiar development. In Eastern Orthodoxy, much more emphasis historically on their theology has come from their monastic system, whereas the Catholicism the papacy was developed as the means of dictating beliefs and practices. In both cases, the clear teaching of scripture was either "developed" or ignored in favor of newer theologies.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You are correct, as usual!

As best as I can determine, laying on of hands is a sign of "Agreement".

I think it would be helpful to understand very carefully that there are no magical biblical formulas for the ministry of the church. Laying on of hands has no power in itself.

It is similar to the "anointing of oil" in James. Some have understood that to mean that there is healing ability in that process and there is none. The word in the Greek in James is the same word Jesus used when He told someone to "Anoint" himself with oil. It means to put some oil on your hair and brush it so that you will look presentable.

Laying on of hands is only used by God when it is done in agreement with God's Word.

I entirely agree with you on this. In many churches there seems to be a form of sacredotalism related to laying on of hands. Just the very act of doing so is a magic formula where God is required to perform some mystical function. In the case of Roman Catholicism, the ordination of priests means that once a priest is ordained, there is nothing possible that can eradicate his spiritual powers - even the most heinous of sins cannot change the fact that he is a priest forever. This means, of course, that Luther (that most blasphemous of ordained priests) is, according to Catholic theology, still a priest, although most Catholics believe he went to hell.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I entirely agree with you on this. In many churches there seems to be a form of sacredotalism related to laying on of hands. Just the very act of doing so is a magic formula where God is required to perform some mystical function. In the case of Roman Catholicism, the ordination of priests means that once a priest is ordained, there is nothing possible that can eradicate his spiritual powers - even the most heinous of sins cannot change the fact that he is a priest forever. This means, of course, that Luther (that most blasphemous of ordained priests) is, according to Catholic theology, still a priest, although most Catholics believe he went to hell.
From the teachings of Jesus the only laying on of hands was for healing. Trivia for the day.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
From the teachings of Jesus the only laying on of hands was for healing. Trivia for the day.

True. That is a great theological curiosity for those who believe in the laying on of hands for ecclesiastical ordination. If Jesus called the twelve disciples and ordained them, then why is there no record whatsoever about His laying His hands on them for ordination? Also, when Matthias was selected to replace Judas among the twelve, there is no record about laying hands on him.

Acts 1:12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters, the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’

and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership."

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
From the teachings of Jesus the only laying on of hands was for healing. Trivia for the day.

Well.....that is YES and NO. Jesus certainly laid His hands on many of those He healed; however, He also healed without laying His hands on people.

In fact, there were times when He was nowhere in the vicinity of those He healed.

Matt. 8:8 describes Jesus healing the servant of the centurion without going near the centurion’s house.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JLHargus

Active Member
Sep 10, 2018
209
28
80
Columbus
✟33,906.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

JL: [Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament and there were lightnings and voices and thunderings and an earthquake and great hail. Rv12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and upon her head a crown of twelve stars 2 And she being with child cried travailing in birth and pained to be delivered]

The woman is a person=Mary, symbolic of the Church, Old and New Covenant people of God. Twelve stars, universal queen, queen of heaven and earth.

[Rv12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.] The red dragon is a person Satan and symbolic of governments and organizations that persecute the Church throughout the ages.

[Rv12:5 And she brought forth a man child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron and her child was caught up unto God and to his throne]

To rule all nations, universal king, the child is a person=Christ. [Symbolic of all persons. JPII The Gospel of Life. Chapter 104.]
KJV Biblegateway
 
  • Like
Reactions: packermann
Upvote 0