How Do Protestants Avoid This Scripture?

[P3chrmd]

How do protestants explain this line in John!? I mean come on can it be spelled out any easier by Our Lord...CONFESSION! IT WORKS!!!!

[b]John 21-23[/b]

[i]and he said to them again, Peace be with you.

'As the Father sent me,
so am I sending you.'

After saying this he breathed on them and said:

Receive the Holy Spirit.
If you forgive anyone's sins,
they are forgiven;
if you retain anyone's sins,
they are retained.

[New Jerusalem Bible][/i]

Edited June 27, 2004 by P3chrmd

[MorphRC]

John what? 1,2,3?

[Quietfire]

It is located in St. John 20; 21-23

Interestingly enough, Thomas was not there when Jesus breathed on the others. He was absent, and came later. Thomas didnt see Jesus until he appeared again some 8 days later.

Is that why no works by Thomas appear in the Bible? And why the Church is very careful in the find at the Black Sea in reference to writings supposedly done by Thomas. I hadnt noticed that before until today and thought that was interesting. It would explain a lot, and why the Church wishes to spend so much time on those, to cross reference and make sure of their validity.

Peace :peace:

Edited June 27, 2004 by Quietfire

[MorphRC]

[color=blue][b]Non-Christian Interpretation of John 20:21-23 -[/b][/color]

[color=red][b]v23:[/b][/color]

[b]Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament-[/b]

Here (as in Matthew 18:18) this authority to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sins was not restricted to Peter but belonged to all of the apostles. For full discussion of this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matt. 16:19.

More coming. bbs

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jun 27 2004, 09:46 AM'] It is located in St. John 20; 21-23

Interestingly enough,  Thomas  was not there when Jesus breathed on the others.  He was absent, and came later.  Thomas didnt see Jesus until he appeared again some 8 days later.

Is that why no works by Thomas appear in the Bible?  And why the Church is very careful in the find at the Black Sea in reference to writings supposedly done by Thomas.  I hadnt noticed that before until today and thought that was interesting.  It would explain a lot, and why the Church wishes to spend so much time on those, to cross reference and make sure of their validity.

Peace :peace: [/quote]
No, that is not why the Church does not accept the "gospel of Thomas." The gospels of Thomas (there are actually at least two) were not written by Thomas or even in the Apostolic period. They are Gnostic writings dating from around the middle of the second century AD (I think). They contradict the truth found in inspired Scripture.

The Church does not slight St. Thomas at all. In the Gospels he is actually the first to refer to Jesus as "my Lord and God"

Considering most of the epistles in the New Testament were written by Paul, who was not there in John 20, I seriously doubt (ha, ha) that Thomas' absence has anything to do with why there are no canonical books written by him.

I have more info on the gospel of Thomas if you want it.

Edited June 27, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[Quietfire]

Thanks Polar, and sure, I find that its hard to find stuff on Thomas unless it is outside Catholicism. Therefore, I wont read it now.

It was just a thought though. Since Thomas was always doubting, I figured there was something there. Those items found in the 50's near the Dead Sea are the ones I am speaking of.
They made a movie called "Stigmata" that had a lot of references to the 'secret writings of Jesus' and stuff from Thomas. Although I do know that Jesus himself never wrote anything in print. (He wrote everything in our hearts)

Peace :peace:

Edited June 27, 2004 by Quietfire

[p0lar_bear]

The "secret writings" generally refer to Gnostic writings.


I think Thomas gets a bad rap. I mean, yes he questioned whether Jesus really came back. But once he saw he was fully convinced. James, John, and Peter all had bad moments too.


Anyway, we've pretty much hijacked P3chrmd's thread...

So, back to the question on John 20...

[Ellenita]

[quote]The Church does not slight St. Thomas at all. In the Gospels he is actually the first to refer to Jesus as "my Lord and God"[/quote]

I was thinking about Thomas earlier today and thanking God that he is recorded in the Bible that he had those doubts - it was a reminder to me that the whole aspect of every human experience is contained within the bible, which is such a relief isn't it?!

[quote]How do protestants explain this line in John!? I mean come on can it be spelled out any easier by Our Lord...CONFESSION! IT WORKS!!!![/quote]

The problem is, as a protestant is it is quite easy to take verses out of their context in order to apply them directly as authority in your life. So, my understanding of that verse when I was a protestant was that I had to forgive people who had hurt me....and that kind of fitted into other bible verses I read!

Of course I had no idea about the amazing Sacrament of Penance at the time, which I now know is utterly incredible and liberating!

[p0lar_bear]

P3chrmd,

OK, I was curious, so I did some checking...

according to the commentaries available at biblegateway.com, most explain this as a reference to preaching the Gospel. They preach the Gospel, people hear and believe, their sins are fogiven -Or- They preach the Gospel, people hear and don't believe, their sins are not forgiven.

Doesn't really seem true to the text though...doesn't explain the choice in grammar (i.e. "whose sins [i]you[/i] retain")

[Neal4Christ]

Well, since I am still a Protestant, at least for now, I will tell you how I dealt with it: I didn't . It was one of those hard passages that I would tend to ignore. However, if I was forced to interpret it, I would have said that it was only a power given to the apostles.

In Christ,
Neal

[Mary's Knight, La]

I asked a prot friend of mine too, and when pressed for a real answer, she said it was an "apostles" only thing.

most prot friends of mine when pressed on verses supporting something they disagree, once false interpretation are dealt with come back to "it was just for the apostles at that time" which is the opening for Apostolic sucession when i have the energy

Edited June 28, 2004 by Mary's Knight, La

[Archbishop 10-K]

Of course, "for the Apostles only" makes no logical sense, just like the primacy of Peter being "for Peter only." Authority in the Scriptures has, to my knowledge, always involved successors. For example, the priesthood, including the high-priest, the kings, judges, all of these had successors. Why not the Apostles as well?

[Crusader_4]

I would like to clear something up about St. Thomas. According to many accounts he travelled to India and started Church's in that area. AS a matter of fact there is a rite called the Malabar Catholic Rite which i guess would be compared to how St. Andrew in the Ukraine. When St. Thomas brought the word to India communicatiosn between India and the West were soon lost afterwards however the Church continued to keep the traditions that were established by Thomas (no canocal bible only a few writtings really short of a full bible when Thomas went) so the whole Church relied on the Tradition brought by St. Thomas. During the Age of Exploration when Catholics in Europe arrived in India they were suprised to find a Christian Catholic Church that was virtually the same in belief as the one in Europe regarding priests, Eucharist, and other Catholic Beliefs. So to this day the Malabar Rite is in full communion with Rome. So kind of an interesting story i am sure there are others that no more details then me but very fascinating. That a Church that was cut off from the "corruption" of the Catholic Church of the middle ages and pre then and post then was believing the same thing as that of the Church in Europe....fascintaing indeed.

Edited June 28, 2004 by Crusader_4

[Crusader_4]

*bump*

[MorphRC]

[font="Courier"][font="Arial"][color=blue][b][url="http://www.searchgodsword.org/"]Protestant Interpretation of John 20:21-23 - SearchGod's Word.Org[/url][/b][/color][/font][/font]

[b]The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible:[/b]

[b]John 20:23[/b]

[b]Whose soever sins ye remit…[/b]
God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles; nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it; it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind; who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God: but this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins, through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of God's grace, to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake: and accordingly,

[b]they are remitted unto them;[/b]
in agreement with Christ's own words, in his declaration and commission to his disciples; see (Mark 16:16) (Luke 24:47) . On the other hand he signifies, that

[b]whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained:[/b]
that is, that whatsoever sins ye declare are not forgiven, they are not forgiven; which is the case of all final unbelievers, and impenitent sinners; who dying without repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel declaration, shall be damned, and are damned; for God stands by, and will stand by and confirm the Gospel of his Son, faithfully preached by his ministering servants; and all the world will sooner or later be convinced of the validity, truth, and certainty, of the declarations on each of these heads, made by them.

[color=red][b]Geneva Bible Interpretation Next...[/b][/color]