Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Repentant Sinners
Topic Started: Sunday, 11. November 2012, 19:51 (675 Views)
Penfold
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Monday, 12. November 2012, 19:59
Penfold
 
A little history lesson to aid with understanding the context, tax collectors were notorious for being corrupt.
Do you have an ancient source for this oft-made but never substantiated claim?
The claim is not mine, I offerd a quote from a better scholar than some
here are a few more.

http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/TaxCollectors.html

http://www.bible-history.com/texts/julius_caesar/african_wars_not_caesar.html

http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/tax-collector.html

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

This interests me, because I have long wondered what the ancient sources for this are. Thank you for the three references. However, the first and third cite no ancient source other than the NT, which is reticent abut exactly what was wrong with the tax-gatherers. I see nothing illuminating in the second, a very long citation from the propagandist self-server Julius Caesar. Never mind. There is no doubt that tax-collectors were despised by the Jews. The modern citations make it clear that they were seen as siding with Rome against their own people. But evidence of systematic misbehaviour on their part is difficult to discern. In another post long ago I went through all the NT references to tax collectors. They were not as far as I recall ever described as sinners, but often referred to in phrases such as "tax gatherers and sinners" (interestingly not "tax gatherers and other sinners"). It may not be of great importance, but it does somewhat affect the way in which we should understand what was happening when Jesus interacted with tax collectors. I see it as less a call to repentance than yet further evidence of His generous inclusivity of those who were regarded by the faithful as being beneath contempt.
I note from the first link
Quote:
 
John's [the Baptist's] teachings indicate that simply being a tax-collector was not inherently considered a sinful occupation.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Gerard
Sunday, 11. November 2012, 22:34
But Jesus preached repentence. It is central to his message. These are from a single Gospel.

Matthew 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

Matthew 11:20
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.

Matthew 11:21
“Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.

Matthew 21:32
For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.
The about those quotations is that they address collectively, not individually.

How does a city or place repent?

Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the need to stop sinning, I just have this feeling that "repent" is somehow different from the sense we generally use it in.
Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 08:31.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 01:33
I see it as less a call to repentance than yet further evidence of His generous inclusivity of those who were regarded by the faithful as being beneath contempt.
That's more or less what I'm trying to explore here, OsB.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Mairtin
Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 08:34
OsullivanB
Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 01:33
I see it as less a call to repentance than yet further evidence of His generous inclusivity of those who were regarded by the faithful as being beneath contempt.
That's more or less what I'm trying to explore here, OsB.
What a wonderful human world you create. Where sinners need not repent just bask in the Lords loving kindness.

Jesus publicly called the most notorious and publicly vilified sinners to repent and in so doing showed us that we too must forgive even the worst offenders if they repent. We are all called to repent and we are all called to forgive as Jesus taught us, if you are unsure check the prayer Jesus left us. "and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
He welcomed the repentant not those to obstinate or to foolish to recognise that they needed to be forgiven, often portrayed in the scriptures by the Scribes and Pharisees.
Console your selves if you wish that you may remain a sinner and ignore the call to repentance, but be in no doubt that that is what Jesus is calling us to do and the story of Zacchaeus is just one brief glimpse at the way in which he did it. He called Zacchaeus by name and in doing so helped him remember how he was unworthy of it and needed to repent his sins. His sins,the nature of his sin is incidental, though its notoriety was important because it gave a clear signal to all, even the greatest sinners can be saved.

But go on twisting the tale till it fits your story and your interests.

Quote:
 
Jeremiah 5:21: 21 Hear this, you foolish and senseless people,
who have eyes but do not see,
who have ears but do not hear: (New International Version)


Quote:
 
Matthew 13:13-16: 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.
(New International Version)


Quote:
 
Isaiah 6:9-10
(NIV)
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.[a]
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
garfield

I may be wrong but I think the people Jesus actually called on to repent as in he said to them directly and in person 'Repent!' were the scribes and pharisees i.e the only people who were confident that they didn't need to.
Jesus didn't say anything to Zacchaeus about him being a sinner because Zacchaeus knew that already- it was obvious to all (like the divorced or shunned woman at the well, everyone knew she was a sinner) which is what I meant by him having a bad conscience. If he had been entirely confident that his tax collecting activities were not sinful, or that it didn't matter that they were, he would have been as bad as the pharisees.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Penfold,

As far as I can see not a single poster here has suggested that repentence is not required. We are discussing some Gospel texts. And your aggresive domineering attitude insulting people and calling them and questining their committment to christianity is perhaps an exmple of why so many have turned away from the church.

Now, I am sticking to my point until someone comes up with a reasoned argument to convince me that Zacheus was other than a man of integrity. And I will use your own link to provide reasoned argument for my case:

Quote:
 
However, John’s teachings indicate that simply being a tax-collector was not inherently considered a sinful occupation.


http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/TaxCollectors.html

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Mairtin,

I am sure you know already that repentance means to turn around. To go in another (the opposite) direction. In this sence, even if Zacheus was a man of integrity he may well have been pursuing wealth and by giving half of it away it shows that he is now pursuing Jesus. He has turned around.


Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Gerard
 
I am sure you know already that repentance means to turn around.
I don't think so. But that is less important than understanding the original Hebrew, Greek or (unavailable) Aramaic.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

You are the Greek scholar among us Bernard. What does metanoia mean?

I have noticed that pre V2 the church seemed to translate metanoia as "do penance". I was flummoxed by some of the things Pope Benedict was saying until I realised that he was using the word penance in place of repentance. I thought this was (and is) drifting rather far from the meaning of metanoia.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

The great Liddell and Scott Lexicon gives "afterthought, repentance" for "metanoia". The related verb is "metanoein" per L&S: "to perceive afterwards or too late, to change one's mind or purpose, to repent".
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Well, in recent years I have sat through many sermons and talks where the word metanoia has been parsed, explained etc. Usually giving a meaning of to turn around or to change ones mind. It seemed to be something of a trend or fashion.

But I claim no expertise here.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Gerard
Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 10:33
Penfold,

As far as I can see not a single poster here has suggested that repentence is not required. We are discussing some Gospel texts. And your aggresive domineering attitude insulting people and calling them and questining their committment to christianity is perhaps an exmple of why so many have turned away from the church.
If you find quotations from scripture domineering and insulting then that is too bad, but you can go on trying to prove black is white till the cows come home and many will agree with you for it suits men to find a solution that falls short of the truth, repentance, changing ones ways, acknowledged ones faults, call it metanoia if you like it makes not one jot of a difference the result is the same, change our ways to the ways of Christ. Jesus called Zacchaeus by name... check it out... he called him to be what he was meant to be not what he had become, the meeting was not by chance...however I am wasting my time, Your hatred of the church and its authority has blinded you to the truth of the scriptures and I pity you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Gerard
Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 12:51
Well, in recent years I have sat through many sermons and talks where the word metanoia has been parsed, explained etc. Usually giving a meaning of to turn around or to change ones mind. It seemed to be something of a trend or fashion.

But I claim no expertise here.

Gerry
"To change one's mind" - yes as indicated by Liddell and Scott cited in my earlier post. "To turn around" - I cannot see any basis for this.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Penfold
Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 13:22
Gerard
Tuesday, 13. November 2012, 10:33
Penfold,

As far as I can see not a single poster here has suggested that repentence is not required. We are discussing some Gospel texts. And your aggresive domineering attitude insulting people and calling them and questining their committment to christianity is perhaps an exmple of why so many have turned away from the church.
If you find quotations from scripture domineering and insulting then that is too bad, but you can go on trying to prove black is white till the cows come home and many will agree with you for it suits men to find a solution that falls short of the truth, repentance, changing ones ways, acknowledged ones faults, call it metanoia if you like it makes not one jot of a difference the result is the same, change our ways to the ways of Christ. Jesus called Zacchaeus by name... check it out... he called him to be what he was meant to be not what he had become, the meeting was not by chance...however I am wasting my time, Your hatred of the church and its authority has blinded you to the truth of the scriptures and I pity you.
Thats your reasoned argument?

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply