Replies

Look, if you insist that the apostles and some succession from them have the power to forgive sins and need that for your belief structure nothing I say will change that.

I'll accept that as a concession that your argument around the translation was erroneous. What we have learned:

1. Catholics and Protestants generally translate John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 the same way, so your claim that Catholics have mistranslated it to support their claims regarding Apostolic Succession has failed.

2. Your main point, and even your grasping at straws argument that the use of the future tense "doesn't mean it didn't exist prior not does it mean it will cease to exist" ignores the fact that the word in Scripture is in the future tense. There's meaning in that fact. The exact words used in Scripture matter. You initially denied the meaning by claiming the word wasn't in the future tense but when that was shown to be false you switched your claim to say that the use of the future tense doesn't mean anything. Words in Scripture matter so this argument also fails.

3. You fabricated the quote int he following sentence:

the literal meaning of the word ... indicates exists "with no time limits"

The actual quote is existence "without explicit limits". You inserted the word "time" between quotes to change the meaning from simply "to be" as opposed to "to be tall" or "to be late", i.e. existence without explicit limits, to existence without past present or future, which makes no sense for a verb that has a past tense, a present tense and a future tense.

So after a lot of close reading we are left with nothing other than your opinion that "I believe it's inconceivable that God would turn over to the carnal mind of man the ability to forgive or retain the sin of others" and "Look, if you insist that the apostles and some succession from them have the power to forgive sins and need that for your belief structure nothing I say will change that."

Those are both interesting arguments, but Sola Scriptura they are not.

>>I'll accept that as a concession that your argument around the translation was erroneous.<<

You can "accept" whatever you wish to conjure up or create in order to soothe some need. That doesn't however make it so.

>>Catholics and Protestants<<

Protestants denominations retain many of the errors of the Catholic Church from whence they came. I simply took the literal meaning of the ancient Greek words.

>>Your main point, and even your grasping at straws argument that the use of the future tense "doesn't mean it didn't exist prior not does it mean it will cease to exist" ignores the fact that the word in Scripture is in the future tense.<<

Yeah, and the sun will be hot next year also.

>>You fabricated the quote int he following sentence:<<

You out yourself. Had you actually been interesting in learning the truth you would have actually gone to investigate the true meaning of the word. From the same site I gave you.

1510 /eimí ("is, am") – in the present tense, indicative mood – can be time-inclusive ("omnitemporal," like the Hebrew imperfect tense). Only the context indicates whether the present tense also has "timeless" implications. For example, 1510 (eimí) is aptly used in Christ's great "I am" (ego eimi . . . ) that also include His eternality (self-existent life) as our life, bread, light," etc. See Jn 7:34, 8:58, etc. [http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm]

Had you actually been interested in the truth you would have gone to the site to see that it does indeed include concept of time. Instead you chose to accuse me of "fabricating".

>>So after a lot of close reading<<

I think I just illustrated how much "close reading" you have done. Make up whatever you wish edwinland.