Avoice
Active Member
Are you saying John Taught Jesus?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Pope..Pope means Spiritual Father
- Thread starter Awoon
- Start date
Are you saying John Taught Jesus?
Avoice
Active Member
It has everything to do with claiming power or authority in the congregation I.E. Church.
How do you get your conclusion re "you will not offer your OWN interpretations of scripture. " and "you will only preach my interpretation of scripture."?
Nope.
I'm stating that John, the Father and the Holy Spirit confirmed Jesus as a teacher with authority.
Avoice
Active Member
It Does say the Authority is God, not man.
Avoice
Active Member
I read your link's info and saw nothing about age.
Avoice
Active Member
John said Jesus should baptize him not, he Jesus. The Father and His holy spirit confirmed Jesus. However, Jesus' Baptism was done to "fulfill all righteousness".
Yes I believe Jesus was sinless before his baptism.
No.
It's all about a teaching method (rabbi/talmidim) and has nothing to do with Church power or authority.
Jesus doesn't need to train 12 future rabbis to offer theirindividual interpretations of scripture or to teach their individual interpretations as 'fathers.' There were plenty of rabbis then capable of doing that.
They are to preach his interpretation of scripture only as he is the One Master.
If Jesus is sinless why does he need to be baptized via John's baptism of repentence..repentence implies sin, does it not? So why would Jesus bother with it?
John knows who Jesus is..and is simply implying that Jesus should be confirming John as a teacher with authority, not the other way around.
So, what's your point? I already posted info that Jesus needed to be 30 to be able to teach and the NT attests that he was 30 when he began teaching.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That statement doesn't assume that he was teaching them (as a Rabbi would do).
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
...Which is exactly what the church asserts.
Avoice
Active Member
That statement doesn't assume that he was teaching them (as a Rabbi would do).
I never said he was, or certainly didn't mean to, but he did speak to them and they did listen to him.
Avoice
Active Member
If No, then why is it so hard to correct the hierarchy when it is so far off from Bible that one cannot keep still. Even Martin Luther was excommunicated for trying to correct the Church and he was in the "training program".
They taught His life and His teachings which we have documented in the Bible. Yet the Individual interpretations have proliferated and given pastors and priests and Popes and other leaders power beyond what Jesus ever intended or said.
So also are we to act on and preach his interpretation of scripture.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
One listens to one's wife in that culture, too, but sh had no authority.
WyattDerp
Active Member
It's the default position, the burden of evidence is on those who claim to derive privilege from what he said.
lolwhut.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
How is:
the "default position?" Privilege is derived from the succession of authority that began with Jesus.
Jesus gave his apostles quite a bit of authority, from the power to forgive sin to the keys to the kingdom; from healing the sick, to proclaiming the good news.
WyattDerp
Active Member
Source please. Not that even that would imply any other other authority, but still.
And that means what, exactly? The catholic church?
That's not authority, that's more or less an order to do these things.
The authority to proclaim a message hinges on actually truthfully proclaiming said message. If the math teacher says 2+2=5, and the student says 2+2=4, that just the roles should be switched, not that two and two make five. Or, in the case of the gospel, if the catholic church starts asking for money to shorten the time dead relatives spend in purgatorium, or burns anything and anyone threatening its authority. Or hey, what about making Charlemagne "Holy Roman Emperor" after he had forced people to convert to Christianity or be killed. The list is endless, too.
You know, stuff that seems rather basic in hindsight.. sadly, the reasons we now view such thing as barbaric and idiotic were mostly externally imposed on the Catholic Church, so no credit for that. Which is odd for an institution which is supposed to bring light into the world, or salt the soup, I forget which it was. If they have The Keys(tm), they sure fumbled sometimes.
Proclaiming good news to the poor and downtrodden, huh? Speaking truth in the face of power, instead of colluding with it, heh? I'm sorry, but it's hard to even discuss this seriously. I guess some are so steeped into the armpit juice of mama church that they just don't notice how hideous it looks from another perspective. I'd say the same about warmongering evangelicals in mega churches though, so don't think I have it in for the Catholics; just those, too.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You're splitting hairs. Jesus gave his apostles authority to carry out ministry in Jesus' name. That's precisely what they still do, from the presbyters and deacons who work under the auspices of the lowest bishop, to the archbishops, cardinals, and the Bishop of Rome. That entails everything from pronouncing the forgiveness of sin, to healing, to preaching the gospel. Jesus certainly didn't give the Roman guards, or the Jewish scribes, or the Samaritan women authority to minister in his name.
Do they make mistakes? Of course they do! They're human, just like everyone else. they're sinners, just like everyone else. Why should they be held to a higher standard??? Ordination sets them apart for ministry, not apart from acting like a human being.
The question at hand doesn't have anything to do with ethics or morals. It has to do with who carries Christ's authority. Answer? His apostles. Even if they're lowlife pricks.
Avoice
Active Member
Only 10 % of Christians even read their Bible's when I was a kid just picking it up to read it. What's that percentage now and certainly not those associated with churches to laden with tradition to even check the Bible if a parishioner has an objection. Martin Luther was excommunicated for using Bible above Doctrine.
sojourner said:
Experience with everything from the Catholic Church to the JW
sojourner said:
Wouldn't be the first time.