Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
Please, do the italics thingy. I've been posting a lot. I'm guessing you are talking about people being in heaven?
The bible doesn't say babies, and it does not use the greek words for infants.
Revelation is referring to the spiritually, not the physically, dead. Paul before the sanhedrin is speaking of the bodily resurrection. Not the state of the spirit after death. You need to read I Thes 4:13-17. Particularly vs 14.
Then evidently your God is the Author of confusion. Objectively, there are thousands of differing opinions concerning the Bible among your co-religionists. God CANNOT be the Author of all of them! Yet that is what you claim. How does one distinguish the inspired nature of your opinion from any other non-Catholic on this forum alone? You all certainly do NOT agree on everything? You are your own magisterium, plain and simple. Yet you accuse Catholics of opposition to God's will when at least THEY can provide some scriptural evidence for the application of magisterial authority to the successors of St. Peter. You obviously don't buy that, but at least the case can be made. Where's the scriptural evidence for your assertions regarding YOUR magisterial authority, as opposed to any other Protestant?
The poster correctly called it the NKJV, nor the MKJV. There is no such version as the "Modern King James Version." On the contrary, I am a bvery happy person but as Christian I hate to wee the bible distorted and misquoted.
You need to read Philippians 1:23 and Philippians 3:10-11. Paul is speaking of the resurrection from the dead. He knew that at death he would know of no passing of time and his resurrection would seem instantaneous.
>> The term presbyter is never translated priest <<
Uh, yeah, that was my point. The King James Bible, fully aware of the power or framing, never once translates "Presbyter" as "priest," in spite of the fact that the word "Priest" simply is an anglicization of "Presbyter." Instead, King James translated "Hierus" as "priest," because the New Testament says that Jesus is the only "hierus" needed. But "hierus" doesn't mean priest, it means "holy one."
So actually, whereas the bible REALLY says we should all be holy ("hieratuna" of all believers), but there should be people especially appointed to be priests ("presbyters"), Protestants THINK it says we should all be priests, but maybe you should have an elder to run the show.
And yes, "presbyters" WERE appointed for special authority (Acts 14:23 : a presbyter is appointed for each church; In numerous places; Paul, Peter and John invoke the authority of being an presbyter in instructing their audiences; 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of presbyters ruling the church)
Do you even ATTEMPT to read these posts with a view to understanding their implications? These voices from the early Church mean nothing, simply because they post-date the New Testament? The archaeological excavations demonstrating Peter's presence where tradition placed him mean nothing, too? That is sheer, blinder-wearing ignorance.
Prove it from Scripture!
The scriptures you quote refer to the bodidly resurrection. How do you know what Paul thought?
Like the way the catholics pick and chose what they want to believe from various sources?????
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works. Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
Jesus hasn't come back yet - there is still sin in the world.
By what means has it been established that the bones found were those of Peter, other than the claim of the catholic church. We have many people today who write their opinions concerning the founding fathers of this nation. e all of them assumed to be correct. Most of them have been written closer to the fact than the writings leaned upon by the Catholic church.
My guess is that the author of my bible software put MKJV instead of NKJV. You haven't posted one scripture and the ones you quote are off the mark.
Uh...the pasage used by Jaded comes from Luke 18:15-17, where the word "infants" is used. Try reading from the verse cited, rather than the parallel text in Matthew 19.
You need to learn the difference between the spiritual resurrection and the bodidly resurrection. These are two totally different things. Until then you post display a lack of understanding of scripture.
If I have not posted one scripture how is it that the ones I have posted are off the mark. Your post is self contradictery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.