Thanks for returning our discussion back to the Bible. I have some comments about the verses you have helpfully cited for us and the interpretations you have made on these verses. I’ll confine myself just to your first post, as it covers the ground you and I have been discussing already, and let others tackle the other issues and beliefs you raised, apart from one issue about Mary:
If Mary was married to Joseph, it would be normal and right (given amongst other things Paul’s commands in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 about not depriving your spouse of their sexual rights) for her to have a fully sexual relationship with her husband, wouldn’t it? So you are only arguing against the certainty of the NT explicitly stating Jesus had biological siblings, rather than raising an objection per se against Mary having sex with Joseph to possibly produce children? I have to say I find that your argument against the certainty of Jesus having biological siblings (from verses that suggest this was so on a plain reading) seems at odds with your willingness to suggest as certainties ideas that can only be implied from a verse (e.g. as you read Matt 12:32 as supporting “forgiving some sins in the world to come”). This is made more puzzling for me as the use of “adelphoi” is almost always translated as “brother” regardless of whether it means biological, relational or spiritual brotherhood – it is rarely translated as (or means) cousin or kinsmen as you suggest, as there are other words which suffice much better for that purpose, such as “suggenes” for Elizabeth in Luke 1:36.
Donna Green - 25 July 2008 12:25 AM
2 Maccabees 12:46 - “Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin”. This book of the bible was omitted after the reformation because it contradicted Luther’s position.
Whilst not wanting to get in to the issue of whether this book is canonical or not, I think it is important to note that this book was written well after the Apostles’ time, yet claims to be a history of the inter-testament period (i.e. between the end of the OT and the birth of Jesus). This smells fishy to me because of its highly revisionist basis, i.e. it is claimed to be a historical work of a period before Jesus, but it cannot be a book that Jesus or the Apostles would have ever read to be able to approve of - as opposed to the other histories of the standard OT canon.
Donna Green - 25 July 2008 12:25 AM
Matt12:32 – “And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This implies that some sins can be forgiven in the world to come. Don’t forget that nothing unclean can enter heaven.
What it clearly says is that there cannot be any forgiveness in any circumstances for speaking against the Holy Spirit. The question of whether any other sin could possibly be forgiven “in the age to come” is simply not addressed by this passage. Consider this analogy:
Pete: “Hey Tim, can I borrow your car today to go drag racing when I’m drunk?
Tim: “No Pete, you cannot borrow my car to go drag racing when you’re drunk - not today, nor any time in the future.”
Pete: {thinks}Wow, that’s great, Tim will let me borrow his car to go drag racing when I’m sober some day in the future.
Pete’s assumption from what my reply might have implied doesn’t hold much water does it?
Donna Green - 25 July 2008 12:25 AM
1Cor3:14-15 –“If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” When do we receive our reward? In heaven. So, therefore, when would we receive loss, in the context of this text, in purgatory. Paul is talking about being saved but also having to go through some sort of fire. It may not say purgatory, but the bible never says trinity either.
Verse 13 indicates this happens on ‘the Day”, most likely judgement day, wouldn’t you agree? So why would there be any need from these verses to suggest a waiting place, given that Hebrews 4:27 tells us that people are destined to die once and then to face judgement? Verse 14 indicates the person who suffers loss is still saved, that is they pass into heaven, so can I suggest the loss will be the dismay of seeing their works shown to be of no value, whereas the reward is not entering heaven (which the one who suffers loss also receives), but rather seeing God approve of their works? That is surely a mighty reward!
Donna Green - 25 July 2008 12:25 AM
2Tim 1:16-18 – “May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me: he was not shamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day – and you know very well what services he rendered at Ephesus”. This text shows Paul asking mercy for Onesiphorus who was dead!
I’m sorry Donna, but after reading all of 2 Timothy and searching for Onesiphorus throughout the remainder of the NT, I can see no indication of when he died. Could you please point out to me where it is made clear that Onesiphorus was already dead at the time Paul wrote this letter?
1Peter 4:6 – “For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God”. You wouldn’t preach to the dead in hell. Once in hell, always in hell. Where were these souls.
Good question! I would draw your attention to the fact that earlier in this letter (ch.3 v.19-20), as you know, Peter talked about preaching to the spirits in prison, who appear to have been disobedient in the time of Noah. I think this is one of the hardest parts of the Bible to interpret properly. I really can’t offer any sound advice on what we can take away from these verses – either for or against the idea of purgatory. I would, however, be a little hesitant to say Jesus wouldn’t or couldn’t do something out of the ordinary (like preach in hell), as he frequently astonished and puzzled people with his words and actions here on Earth.
Donna Green - 25 July 2008 12:25 AM
Luke 12:59 – “I tell you, will never get out until you have paid the very last copper”. Get out of where?
If you read back to Luke 12:58, doesn’t the context show that Jesus is simply talking about dealing with earthly, civil lawsuits? Where do you see the evidence that this is talking about anything other than an earthly setting?
Donna Green - 25 July 2008 12:25 AM
Luke 16 22: I used this text previously and some objections were raised. I would like to reiterate a little better what I think this passage is saying. Whether this is a parable or not, parables always had a sense of truth. Parables are not fairytales. It is clear from this passage that there exists a place where you are purified before entering heaven. This man would not be in hell because anyone in hell would not be interested in warning people on earth to repent. He clearly was not in Heaven. Where was he then? I don’t see the point of these verses if we are forbidden to believe that there exists a place between Heaven and Hell.
Thanks for clarifying your position, Donna. I’m afraid, however, that you’ll need to spell out for me precisely which verse or phrase you see as evidence of purification before entering heaven. Lazarus needed no purification – he was taken straight to heaven (v.22). The rich man was in torment in the place of the dead (v.23), from which he is told by Abraham there is no way across to heaven (v.26). Why do you assume that someone in hell would have no interest in warning people on earth to repent? Surely non-Christians who nonetheless love their families could conceivably want to warn them to avoid this terrible fate once they learn the reality of the consequences of rejecting God, just as the rich man in this parable does? As has been suggested to you previously, the point of these verses is most likely to be found in the concluding verse (v.31) where Jesus foreshadows that even his own resurrection will fail to convince some people to repent.
Donna Green - 25 July 2008 12:25 AM
Matt27:46-49 – This text shows that there must be a place where the old testament saints went. The gates of heaven were not yet open. Elijah certainly would not have been in Hell. I think this passage shows that it was a commonly held belief that a place exists between Heaven and Hell.
I think one objection raised was my use of Jesus crying out on the cross. Those around thought He was crying out to Elijah. The objection was put that Jesus was not crying out to Elijah but his Father, God. That is obvious. My point was that the hearers thought He was crying out to Elijah and said as much. Did they think this was strange. No. On reading this text, it seems that the them, verse 49, were not followers of Christ, and so were not in distress as was suggested, but rather they say, “Let us see whether Elijah will come to save Him”.
Donna, my reply to this verse when you quoted it previously was that there may be the possibility that they did not mishear him – as they most probably understood Aramaic – but were simply twisting the sound of his words around to mock him. What do you think of this possibility? And what do you mean by “the gates of heaven were not yet open” – where does this idea come from?
The people I suggested may have been in distress were any of his followers who may have heard his cry – not his opponents who say “let’s see if Elijah comes to save him”. I agree with you that those speaking in verse 49 are almost certainly his opponents, as verse 41 makes it clear that the bystanders certainly consisted of his opponents (we don’t see explicit confirmation that any of Jesus supporters were nearby and heard his cry). On this basis, whatever they thought was an acceptable belief or practice is immediately under suspicion as Jesus so frequently criticised them precisely becuse of their beliefs and/or actions.
Even if the bystanders did think he was really calling to Elijah and endorsed this practice, just because they are described as endorsing it doesn’t give them approval. Some atheists point to Lot allowing his daughters to be raped and claim the Bible (and therefore God) endorses this practice, ignoring the obvious fact that the Bible can often just describe what people did or believed without commenting directly on whether God approved of their actions and beliefs or not.
As a high church interloper, I increasingly think all this debate about what one passage means or another means proves Donna’s point. If the Bible is meant to be THE clear authority, why does everyone disagree so vehemently? ... One other question Robert Williams implicitly raises is what about the historical Church?
For years upon years, everyone believed the world was flat. The first Greek philospoher-scientists who began to suggest that it was round (based on physical evidence) were viewed as fringe lunatics for hundreds of years. Majority of opinion, even from the most respectable looking sources, is not a [foolproof guarantee of accuracy in or of itself. We disagree not because the truth is not fixed but because we are so prone to making errors in perceiving it.
The question I have put to Robert and others several times and, in my opinon, never had a serious engagement with is this: given that even the first century churches made many errors of doctrine and practice for which they received the rebuke of the apostles in writings which became canon, what use is it to cite church practice without reference to apostolic teaching as well as wider scripture?
David Jason Webb - 25 July 2008 10:54 AM
Christianity didn’t just start yesterday. The Bible isn’t canonical until the 300s (smarties please correct my dates here). So in the space of that 300 years, the role of Christ’s disciples, apostolic successors and communities is much more critical. They carried on what Christ had told them. They defended the faith. They martyred themsleves.
Yes, but the writings made canonical as the NT were all in existence in all likelihood within the apostolic age, and were widely copied, passed around, studied and read, so that when they were made canon they were already widely understood, in text essentially unchanged since very close to their authorship. It’s not like the Da Vinci Code type of inference that these books were suddenly made up or introduced in the 300s or were not well known. So yes, the role of Christians in the post apostolic age is important, but no great change really occurred with the formalisation of the canon, because they were already widely using and depending on those writings 200+ years before the writings were formalised into canon.
David Jason Webb - 25 July 2008 10:54 AM
Meanwhile the Papacy is already in place with St Peter. You can’t escape the Papacy as the centre of Christian unity. It’s where Christianity starts.
I’m not sure I understand your reasoning here. Acts shows us that Christianity started with God’s Holy Spirit enabling the apostles (not just Peter) to preach the gospel and then enable people to respond in positive faith and action to the gospel message - first in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Palestine, then Asia Mnor, then Greece, etc. and then only finally towards the end of Acts does Rome receive an apostolic visit. People were not united around Peter, or Paul, or John, or any of their successors, but around the same gsopel message they all shared and which was committed to writing.
How is the Papacy in place with St. Peter? The first church Peter founded was the church in Jerusalem in Acts 2, so by this line of reasoning why isn’t it the “Jerusalem Catholic” church that counts? I can see nothing in the NT to suggest any apostle before Paul preached the gospel in Rome, so why shouldn’t any line of special Roman bishops come from Paul and not Peter? I’m not able to find any reference in the NT that Peter had anything to do with the church in Rome - which I understand does not mean that he didn’t, only that it’s not ever thought significant enough to raise in scriptural writings over more pressing matters.
David Jason Webb - 25 July 2008 10:54 AM
Given what happens at Lambeth, it’s probably even more critical.
Again, I’m not sure I’ve grasped the point you’re making here? could you explain it in more detail for me, please?
The Bible isn’t canonical until the 300s (smarties please correct my dates here). So in the space of that 300 years, the role of Christ’s disciples, apostolic successors and communities is much more critical.
Rome recognized the 27 books we now have in the New Testament as Canon in AD382. But, there were lists floating around well before this that included almost all of the same 27 books.
As early AD170 (and most likely earlier) churches from different parts of the empire had independently come up with remarkably similar lists, and most scholars agree that the purpose of these lists was to simply ratify the books already accepted as scripture for many years.
The only books in dispute by AD170 were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John and Jude - and these because they couldn’t be directly linked with any of the apostles.
So, to suggest that prior to the ‘300s’, apostolic successors were more important than the writings of the original apostles is to take a strange view of the historical facts.
To all
What I find amusing is that some of you have been very vocal about the Catholic Church honoring saints, yet some of you (I am assuming) would go to Anglican parishes where that church, in some cases, would be named after a ‘saint’. Would this be the same as honoring. Would it also be wrong to name any secular building after any human being. Usually these, who are honored, are dead. I think this is a relevant point. What do you all think?
I am preparing to get back to you Joshua and Tim. Thanks, especially Tim, for being patient.
Donna
To all
What I find amusing is that some of you have been very vocal about the Catholic Church honoring saints, yet some of you (I am assuming) would go to Anglican parishes where that church, in some cases, would be named after a ‘saint’.
Hi Donna
Firstly - well done in your challenging and dogged determination. It’s great to see.
However - I think generally there is a difference between honouring a hero of the past, and praying to one.
Honouring a hero recognises their contribution to history, and how God worked through them. Praying to someone who is dead suggests they have special access to God because of their own good works. An access that we don’t have.
Mike
With all due respect, I think I mentioned God working through Mary in my posts. If protestants want to give all praise to Christ, their churches outward appearance don’t represent that.
Donna
As to your query regarding saints, I go to the Seven Hills Anglican Church, which is known as St. Peters. To be honest, the fact that it’s dedicated to Peter the Apostle has no particular bearing on the activities of the various congregations who meet there. We don’t have any special celebration for or focus on the apostle Peter, and I think very few of us would even know what day St. Peter’s day is - I certainly don’t!
Similarly, all of the Anglican churches I’ve ever belonged to (which have all beeen in the Sydney Diocese) have never paid any particular regard to the apostles they are named after - Matthew, Mark, John, Paul and Peter. Some of the older church buildings did have stained glass windows depicting some incident from the Bible that the apostle was part of, but other newer ones had nothing at all in the church building to indicate a particluar apostle was the patron saint of the parish - just the name on the sign out the front. So that’s as far as most Anglican churches in Sydney diocese go as for honouring the apostle or other Christian believer (i.e saint) they are named after. Others of course are named “All Saints”, or “All Souls”, or “Christ Church” or “Holy Trinity” and therefore bypass this issue altogether.
Some of the more high-church orientated parishes in Sydney certainly do focus more on their patron saint - I know of at least one that holds a week long festival in the name of their patron saint. I can’t tell you exactly what occurs at those parishes or precisely what the level and detail of honouring their saint involves, but some of the other posters here may be able to give you some more information.
My personal opinion is that it focussing on a particular Christian believer as a patron saint could be a bit of a distraction from Jesus, but it could also be a great opportunity to engage with the local community and direct their focus on Jesus, especially via the writings or biblical incidents of the patron saint. The more obscure and removed the patron saint is from the Bible (e.g. St. Bradley the patron saint of X-Box gamers), however, the more difficult it might be to keep the focus on Jesus. For someone like the apostle Mark (his gospel), or the apostle Thomas (incidents in the gospels where he speaks) or the apostle John (his gospel and letters), this should be easier to achieve.
Ken Austin - 25 July 2008 07:45 AM
I guess one has to ask oneself “why am I a Roman Catholic, and why am I so loyal?”. It could simply be that one has been born that way, and has not investigated other denominations with a desire to compare. That may not be so in your case.
Not a particularly helpful comment Ken. People become Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist, Pentecostals, etc. for a variety of reasons. In my case I was raised in an Anglican church, which at one stage I was very dissatisfied with and seriously contemplated leaving. But my investigations led me to stay where I am, without denying the good in a number of other denominations. Donna has, I think, shown that she has done a lot more than simply accept the way she was “brung up” without questioning it!
Bob
Bob, you mujst have problems understanding the written word. If you read my last sentence, I do not place Donna in the aforesaid category. I thought it was clearly written.
I was born Church of England, as it was known. I did not like that Church when I first went there. It was prayer book and stiff collars.
I did like St Matthias Anglican, because of good teaching and a more casual approach.
Mike
With all due respect, I think I mentioned God working through Mary in my posts. If protestants want to give all praise to Christ, their churches outward appearance don’t represent that.
Donna
You have mentioned that - but I still say there is a difference between what you mean by honouring, and what I mean by honouring.
But you’re also right - some protestant churches don’t nessesarily reflect their theology.
Also, to be more accurate, I think most of us Protestants here have been vocal not so much about honouring saints, but about assuming that we can ask the ones who have died and left the Earth (and who are presumably now in heaven) to pray to God for us, as opposed to asking our fellow saints still alive with us on the Earth to pray to God for us, just as the Bible encourages us to do so.
Ken
You said in relation to using scripture as a source “.....You could go to that source yourself, if you were looking for the view that I would probably agree with”. I am not particularly concerned whether you agree with me or not. But I think you are being unfair if you think I haven’t used scripture. What more scripture do you want!
You question my sources. I have tried to debate where you are at - scripture. Scripture has been my main source. I have a Catholic bible and a Protestant version. I use both. The pages are thinning and they are looking like they need a makeover. Sure, I use the knowledge of theologians, the catechism and whatever I can use that is has an orthodox approach to Christianity. Are there some rules to debating on this forum that I have overlooked?
I did not say you did not use scripture. You have done so, but you have probably used a Catholic source point of view in the interpretation of those texts, and not used them in the context of overall scripture. I havnt had time to go over them, but I have found that most official Catholics sites do just that.
But I have not read completely your large post, so I will reserve judgement on your points. I will probably have more to say on specific subjects raised by you, and how you reconcile them to the gospel. I know within the RCC there are different factions. Some want to go back to Latin Mass, whilst others want a more evangelistic style approach,making the scriptures the prime source of authority.
I did not ask you to agree with me, you have misunderstood what I meant to say. I said that I would probably frame my reply to each of your points based on a bible based website. And that if you were to want to read a bible based reply from a “Protestant” point of view, you would be just as able to do so as I would be doing. I just felt it may save time to do that. But you have decided to take the RCC side, and I have rejected its teachings.
Thanks for letting me know your history with a protestant husband. I have truthfully let you know my past. I am very happy now that I have chosen to rely on a bible based approach in my Reformed Church, which happens to be Anglican.
I just dont agree with your personal assessment of the merits of the two sides. We will agree to disagree.
I hope you are assured of your complete salvation because of your demonstrated faith in Jesus. And that you appreciate being reconciled with God by being born again by that faith. And that you enjoy a personal relationship with God through Jesus.
A lot of Catholics do not have that confidence and reassurance of their salvation, and strive to please God by going to mass and their good works. That is a pity.
I spoke to a Catholic woman who lives downstairs. She goes to mass every day. And she asks me to tell her what the bible says. She says her Church should more clearly and completely teach the meaning of the bible. I reassured her that if she had complete faith in Jesus, she was alreay assured of salvation. “Whosoever believeth in me with not die, but have eternal life”. She then said so if that is true, I neednt go to Church any more?
I said that Church is a meeting of Christians, and that she should keep going to encourage others and to be encouraged in the faith herself. Also so that she would not fall away in the faith. She was so full of joy after our conversation.
She asked me, “where is my dead beloved daughter, in heaven now?”. I said she was sleeping like all the dead of all time, waiting for Jesus to return, where He would judge the living and the dead. I said the word cemetery is a Christian word meaning a place where people slept.
Tim
I certainly understand the differences between the Catholic and Protestant position on honoring saints. I was just being a bit cheeky. I think you will find, however, historically, the Anglican or Church of England did continue the practice of honoring the saints in the same way Catholics did after their breakaway. If my study of Church history serves me correct, the Church of England broke with the Catholic Church because of the issue of divorce.
Donna
Ken
I haven’t had time to absorb your reply - going to Cirque de Soliel. Can I just add this quickly:
You hope that I am “assured of your salvation because of your demonstrated faith in Jesus. And that you appreciate being reconciled with God by being born again by that faith. And that you enjoy a personal relationship with God through Jesus”.
Ken, I prefer to be like Paul and “work out my salvation with fear and trembling”. Being assured of your salvation BECAUSE OF YOUR DEMONSTRATED faith in Jesus sounds to me like being saved through works.
Yes I am born again - by the faith I received in baptism.
And Yes, I enjoy a personal relationship with God through Jesus.
Amen!
God bless
Donna
Donna, I simply mean that if one says they have faith in Jesus, but no change is seen in their lives, then that faith is not shown to be a solid faith. Faith will lead to good works, but one cannot rely on good works. We are all saved by the blood of Jesus, not by our works.
Semantics can play tricks in religion.
People need to live by faith. Confident in Salvation. Not led astray by the ways of the World etc.. Trust in the Word of God, not the word of men.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
