Remitting Sins

[pointer]

Eric you claim that I have presented inaccurate grammatical and contextual arguments, however recognized Greek scholars refute your claims, it is you that has the grammar and context wrong.

If Eric has these things wrong, so do Roman Catholics such as Cardinal Heenan, who in 1965 agreed that 'favoured one' is a valid alternative translation; and of course, as we have seen, the translators of the NJB go further, and actually use that rendition. As there is nothing else in all Scripture to give good reason to think Mary any more than a sinner needing grace, the RC case falls by its own implied admission; unless, of course, one recognises the Roman Catholic magisterium and its pronouncements as valid.

we should get back to the subject of remittance of sins.

That is fine by me; I am still waiting to hear how Scripture validates auricular confession and absolution.

[EricH]

KD,

You have avoided answering my question. You made some assertions about the active tense of the verb that I challenged. The scholars you have cited have not addressed that. You also have never dealt with you own use of John 1:14. I enjoy speaking with you as well, but you simply have not responded to my specific questions. All you have done is cut and past scholars who agree with some of your conclusions (I'll bet you can't find any who agree with your take on the active tense). I stand by my assertion that since the premises behind your conclusion are not accurate, your conclusion is not.

[Guest drbelitz]

Eric you claim that I have presented inaccurate grammatical and contextual arguments, however recognized Greek scholars refute your claims, it is you that has the grammar and context wrong.

If Eric has these things wrong, so do Roman Catholics such as Cardinal Heenan, who in 1965 agreed that 'favoured one' is a valid alternative translation; and of course, as we have seen, the translators of the NJB go further, and actually use that rendition. As there is nothing else in all Scripture to give good reason to think Mary any more than a sinner needing grace, the RC case falls by its own implied admission; unless, of course, one recognises the Roman Catholic magisterium and its pronouncements as valid.

we should get back to the subject of remittance of sins.

That is fine by me; I am still waiting to hear how Scripture validates auricular confession and absolution.

it is true that both translations ar valid and do not contradict one another. the same would go for when the use of the word is used to describe jesus, highly favoured one.

its the same word.

mary WAS in need of grace and merely human, the only difference is that she received that grace and that justification at her conception. she is the New Testament ark which was pure and no man could touch(hypothetically0 in a sexual way.

she was the NT ark which held the typological fulfillment of what the OT ark held, manna, bread of life, rod of aaron that budded, true vine w branches and the ten commandments, the Word.

It is similiar to if there were a hole in the ground that you could not see and you fell and needed rescueing from it, as we need, but Mary was rescued from it before she actually fell in.

[Openly Curious]

I am curious to what others opinions are relating to this verse of scripture it is found in

John 20:23--"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

I have my own thoughts in my own study on this verse but I want others views about it so I can see if my own studies surrounding this verse is balanced. thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.

OC

[pointer]

mary WAS in need of grace and merely human, the only difference is that she received that grace and that justification at her conception.

Where is that found in Scripture? It can't be proved from Luke 1:28.

[Guest drbelitz]

I am curious to what others opinions are relating to this verse of scripture it is found in

John 20:23--"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

I have my own thoughts in my own study on this verse but I want others views about it so I can see if my own studies surrounding this verse is balanced. thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.

OC

Jesus speifically gave his first bishops(apostles) the power to hear the confession of sins of others and to recognize their repentance and offer the forgiveness of deadly sins to them along with penance.

[Openly Curious]

I am curious to what others opinions are relating to this verse of scripture it is found in

John 20:23--"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

I have my own thoughts in my own study on this verse but I want others views about it so I can see if my own studies surrounding this verse is balanced. thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.

OC

Jesus speifically gave his first bishops(apostles) the power to hear the confession of sins of others and to recognize their repentance and offer the forgiveness of deadly sins to them along with penance.

Hello drbelitz,

Thank you for at least getting back on topic. I do however disagree in that we need only confess "deadly sins" to what would be a priest as I take it that is what you are referring to here for repentance. I understand that if one would confess in the manner you have described that the priest would act therefore as witness so to speak of the person forgiveness and confession. But when I read your reponse other scriptures come to mind that seem to go against this way of thinking.

Such as in Romans 10 and the need to publicly confess our sins which is all sins not just "deadly sins" as all sin is sin before men. I interpret this to mean outward confess not in private but a public confession and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as the individual calls on the name of the Lord believing Jesus died and arose again on the third day and so therefore is saved from all past sins.

Jesus also taught if we confess Him before men He would confess us before the Father but if we were ashamed of Him He would be ashamed of us before the Father in heaven. So private confessionals doesn't seem to be in line with scriptures that I see here.

I think that when we confess publicly before men just as we are water baptized publicly as an outward sign of the work that has been already done on the inside being washed of our sins that the public becomes our witness of our new birth and we don't need a priest or bishop to do this.

We do however need a preacher with the gospel message being preached so the sinner can hear the word of faith and so respond to the gospel message by faith and come to repentance.

So I don't really see the "link' in what you have said in how it ties into the verse in which i am currently studying.

OC

[pointer]

I am curious to what others opinions are relating to this verse of scripture it is found in

John 20:23--"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

I have my own thoughts in my own study on this verse but I want others views about it so I can see if my own studies surrounding this verse is balanced. thank you in advance for your thoughts on this.

OC

Jesus speifically gave his first bishops(apostles) the power to hear the confession of sins of others and to recognize their repentance and offer the forgiveness of deadly sins to them along with penance.

When did that happen, please? It is not at all what Jn 20:23 says, which was addressed to Jesus' disciples.

[Kansasdad]

The Bible teaches that the confessing of sins is a usual requisite for obtaining forgiveness.

"Speak unto the children of Israel. When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit . . . Then they shall confess their sin which they have done,. . ."

[pointer]

The Bible teaches that the confessing of sins is a usual requisite for obtaining forgiveness.

Nobody has disputed that.

The Bible teaches that Christ gave to the validly ordained ministers of his own Church the power to forgive sins.

The mega problem with that is that there are no ministers now alive who can prove that they have valid ordination. There is not even an indication from God that valid ordination exists in the sense that is meant here. This appears to be invention of man.

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."