A Question for Protestants regarding the Apostles

[benedictus2]

Peace and Joy of Christ to All!

I would like to ask protestants in this forum if it is a common belief among protestants that the apostles dragged their feet after Pentecost.

An Anglican said that based on Acts 2 and Luke 24:49" And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." the Apostles procrastinated in Jerusalem when they should have left Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost.The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :""Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

A further claim was also made that somehow this played right into the hands of the devil.

This is the first time I have heard of this and thought this rather absurd.

But a “Catholic priest?” told me that this is a commonly held belief among protestants.

Is this “priest?” correct?

I would really like to hear your thoughts. I would also like to hear from Catholics too if you have heard protestants make such a claim.

Thanks,

B2

 

[sonettegarbin]

6 For of these are they that creep into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, led away by divers lusts, 7 ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 And even as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth. Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further. For their folly shall be evident unto all men, as theirs also came to be.
2 Tim 3:6-9 (ASV)
17 These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved. 18 For, uttering great swelling words of vanity, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by lasciviousness, those who are just escaping from them that live in error; 19 promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage.
2 Peter 2:17-19 (ASV)
THE FEELING ARGUMENTS ABOUT PROTESTANTS/CATHOLICS AND VICE VERSA AROUSE IN ME ARE SUMMED UP IN THE ABOVE QUOTED VERSES. THE BRIDE OF CHRIST (ARE) NOT ISACS LEAH AND REBECCA B U T O N E B R I D E. THE BAPTISED FAITHFUL IN CHRIST JESUS.

 

[Nicea325]

Peace and Joy of Christ to All!

I would like to ask protestants in this forum if it is a common belief among protestants that the apostles dragged their feet after Pentecost.

An Anglican said that based on Acts 2 and Luke 24:49" And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." the Apostles procrastinated in Jerusalem when they should have left Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost.The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :""Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

A further claim was also made that somehow this played right into the hands of the devil.

This is the first time I have heard of this and thought this rather absurd.

But a “Catholic priest?” told me that this is a commonly held belief among protestants.

Is this “priest?” correct?

I would really like to hear your thoughts. I would also like to hear from Catholics too if you have heard protestants make such a claim.

Thanks,

B2

This is all new to me. I have heard never heard or known a Protestant making such claims.

 

[sonettegarbin]

*The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :"“Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”*

I do not understand what “The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).” has to do with “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” and why this plays into the hands of the Devil
Can someone please explaine to me. Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

Peace and Joy of Christ to All!

I would like to ask protestants in this forum if it is a common belief among protestants that the apostles dragged their feet after Pentecost.

An Anglican said that based on Acts 2 and Luke 24:49" And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." the Apostles procrastinated in Jerusalem when they should have left Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost.The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :""Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

A further claim was also made that somehow this played right into the hands of the devil.

This is the first time I have heard of this and thought this rather absurd.

But a “Catholic priest?” told me that this is a commonly held belief among protestants.

Is this “priest?” correct?

I would really like to hear your thoughts. I would also like to hear from Catholics too if you have heard protestants make such a claim.

Thanks,

B2

Hi Cory,
Do you have a source you could link here regarding this. I’ve never heard the claim.

Jon

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Peace and Joy of Christ to All!

I would like to ask protestants in this forum if it is a common belief among protestants that the apostles dragged their feet after Pentecost.

An Anglican said that based on Acts 2 and Luke 24:49" And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." the Apostles procrastinated in Jerusalem when they should have left Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost.The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :""Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

A further claim was also made that somehow this played right into the hands of the devil.

This is the first time I have heard of this and thought this rather absurd.

But a “Catholic priest?” told me that this is a commonly held belief among protestants.

Is this “priest?” correct?

I would really like to hear your thoughts. I would also like to hear from Catholics too if you have heard protestants make such a claim.

Thanks,

B2

I’m with JonNC, I have never been taught anything like this.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi All,

Thanks for all your responses.

For JonNC, I do not have a source. This question arose out of a thread I was in.

The link below is my first post and you can follow my discussion with Padrej from there.

[forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6754740&postcount=19](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6754740&postcount=19)

I had put that discussion to rest but then got a pm from “priest?” who told me I am right from the Catholic point of view and that Padrej is right from the Protestant point of view because this view is widely held by protestants (as if there are two kinds of truths on this matter)

I had a feeling this “priest?” was just making this up so I thought I would put it to the test.

Hence the reason for starting this thread.

And as both you and MikeofFaith has proved, the “priest?” was lying.

Thanks,

Cory

I

 

[benedictus2]

*The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :"“Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”*

I do not understand what *"*The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).**" has to do with “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” and why this plays into the hands of the Devil
Can someone please explaine to me. Thanks.

Believe me Sonnette I don’t get it either

 

[Esdra]

Hi Cory,

as you know, I am not that long a (fundamentalist, evangelical) protestant yet - and I still have to learn a lot.

But up to know I haven’t heard anything like that that the Apostles dragged their heels after pentecost.

It also sounds strange to me. For me it has always been clear that the Apostles should start to evangelize in Jerusalem and surrounding first…
beneditctus2:

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :"“Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

A further claim was also made that somehow this played right into the hands of the devil.

What has the devil to do with it? I just don’t get his point.
I can assure you to, well, 90% that this is NOT a common protestant believe.

The love of our Lord Christ Jesus may always be with you,
Esdra

 

[Dokimas]

Peace and Joy of Christ to All!

I would like to ask protestants in this forum if it is a common belief among protestants that the apostles dragged their feet after Pentecost.

An Anglican said that based on Acts 2 and Luke 24:49" And (behold) I am sending the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." the Apostles procrastinated in Jerusalem when they should have left Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost.The claim is based on the Koine Greek of Luke 24:49 which is supposed to convey an immediacy (that is after receiving the Holy Spirit you must go at once).

This claim of course does not take into account that fact in verse 46-47, our Lord says :""Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

A further claim was also made that somehow this played right into the hands of the devil.

This is the first time I have heard of this and thought this rather absurd.

But a “Catholic priest?” told me that this is a commonly held belief among protestants.

Is this “priest?” correct?

I would really like to hear your thoughts. I would also like to hear from Catholics too if you have heard protestants make such a claim.

Thanks,

B2

I’ve been an ‘evangelical’ for over 30 yrs; it’s news to me. Course, I’m a slow learner.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Cory,

as you know, I am not that long a (fundamentalist, evangelical) protestant yet - and I still have to learn a lot.

But up to know I haven’t heard anything like that that the Apostles dragged their heels after pentecost.

It also sounds strange to me. For me it has always been clear that the Apostles should start to evangelize in Jerusalem and surrounding first…

What has the devil to do with it? I just don’t get his point.
I can assure you to, well, 90% that this is NOT a common protestant believe.

The love of our Lord Christ Jesus may always be with you,
Esdra

I’ve been an ‘evangelical’ for over 30 yrs; it’s news to me. Course, I’m a slow learner.

Thanks for both your responses. I knew it was all hogwash but had to check anyway.

 

[puzzleannie]

since you don’t give a source for these claims it is useless to debate or discuss them here, only to point out that Jesus clearly directed the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for him to send the Holy Spirit. They waited, he sent the Spirit in due course, in his time, and in the intervening time they prepared for reception of the Spirit gathered together in prayer.

 

[Dokimas]

since you don’t give a source for these claims it is useless to debate or discuss them here, only to point out that Jesus clearly directed the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for him to send the Holy Spirit. They waited, he sent the Spirit in due course, in his time, and in the intervening time they prepared for reception of the Spirit gathered together in prayer.

To borrow a statement from Guanophore (altered a bit), “That’s very ‘evangelical’ protestant of you.”

Credit line with much thanks to:

Guanophore

 

[benedictus2]

since you don’t give a source for these claims it is useless to debate or discuss them here, only to point out that Jesus clearly directed the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for him to send the Holy Spirit. They waited, he sent the Spirit in due course, in his time, and in the intervening time they prepared for reception of the Spirit gathered together in prayer.

Actually I did give a source for this claims if you read my post above. I gave a link to a thread where this claim was made by Padrej (who claims to be an Anglican bishop).

If you follow our discussion, you will see that I vigorously refuted his claim.

A Catholic priest here at CAF also told me that he had heard a few pastors make this claim. But I didn’t think he was being truthful.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

Thanks for both your responses. I knew it was all hogwash but had to check anyway.

I am new to this forum and this thread intrigued me. I have heard this “theory” before amongst non-denominational pastors. I have also heard it from pastor Tony Evans on the TV; God knows he could have been the one who started it.
As to it being common, could be but not in a major way. I would tend to think that it is plausible as an acceptable exegesis. So I would not go so far as to call it hogwash.

It would seem to me as a newbie that there is hatred towards the person of this Padrej. From his profile it would seem that he is going to convert. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that most of this kind of “fussin” as my mother called it could be done as an aside item.

 

[benedictus2]

I am new to this forum and this thread intrigued me. I have heard this “theory” before amongst non-denominational pastors. I have also heard it from pastor Tony Evans on the TV; God knows he could have been the one who started it.
As to it being common, could be but not in a major way. I would tend to think that it is plausible as an acceptable exegesis. So I would not go so far as to call it hogwash.

It would seem to me as a newbie that there is hatred towards the person of this Padrej. From his profile it would seem that he is going to convert. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that most of this kind of “fussin” as my mother called it could be done as an aside item.

There is no hatred to this person of this Padrej. There is a strong objection to his exegesis. And sorry to disagree with you but the exegesis in question is NOT acceptable at all.

And since this is your first post, how did you come to this conclusion? I find that rather intriguing . Me thinks your help in the matter has been sought by a mutual acquaintance.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

There is no hatred to this person of this Padrej. There is a strong objection to his exegesis. And sorry to disagree with you but the exegesis in question is NOT acceptable at all.

And since this is your first post, how did you come to this conclusion? I find that rather intriguing . Me thinks your help in the matter has been sought by a mutual acquaintance.

Is it not acceptable to you or a Protestant?

Look I am new to this forum and I do not like the insinuation that I am even associated with another. As I said, I have heard this same “interpretation” from Tony Evans on TV. Do I agree with it 100%, no I do not. I can see where a verse taken out of context can be viewed this way and I can see the argument of others. Part of not being Catholic is that we DO NOT share your doctrines. Because I share none of your doctrines and believe say that communion is an ordnance rather than a sacrament are you going to say that I am not Christian? My Bible tells me otherwise.

we who are “Protestant” like to feel that we use the Holy Spirit to guide our interpretation of scripture, where you use traditions that we would say are made up by men. It just appears that you are trying to make this an us versus them argument that is pointless. I hardly think that all Protestants are even going to agree on everything.

 

[benedictus2]

Is it not acceptable to you or a Protestant?

It seems both. Have a look at the responses from the Protestants in this thread.

Look I am new to this forum and I do not like the insinuation that I am even associated with another.

Fair enough. The coincidences are just uncanny.

As I said, I have heard this same “interpretation” from Tony Evans on TV. Do I agree with it 100%, no I do not. I can see where a verse taken out of context can be viewed this way and I can see the argument of others. Part of not being Catholic is that we DO NOT share your doctrines. Because I share none of your doctrines and believe say that communion is an ordnance rather than a sacrament are you going to say that I am not Christian?

Huh! Whoa reverend, how did we get from there to the sacraments?

My Bible tells me otherwise.

Your Bible tells you precisely what?

we who are “Protestant” like to feel that we use the Holy Spirit to guide our interpretation of scripture,

Wonderful to have the Holy Spirit at your beck and call so you can “use” Him

Well then, explain this to me. How can you protestants have differing interpretations if you are all “using” the Holy Spirit as your guide?

where you use traditions that we would say are made up by men.

Newsflash! Before we had the Bible we had only tradition. Or is that something that the Holy Spirit has not revealed to you as yet?

It just appears that you are trying to make this an us versus them argument that is pointless. I hardly think that all Protestants are even going to agree on everything.

Actually you are dead wrong there. I knew that the Protestants no more believe this than they believe that cows do jump over the moon. I know that this is not a common belief and I have been proved right by the responses that I have received so far on this thread.

That is the whole point of this thread, to test whether this is a common belief or not.

 

[Dokimas]

Is it not acceptable to you or a Protestant?

Look I am new to this forum and I do not like the insinuation that I am even associated with another. As I said, I have heard this same “interpretation” from Tony Evans on TV. Do I agree with it 100%, no I do not. I can see where a verse taken out of context can be viewed this way and I can see the argument of others. Part of not being Catholic is that we DO NOT share your doctrines. Because I share none of your doctrines and believe say that communion is an ordnance rather than a sacrament are you going to say that I am not Christian? My Bible tells me otherwise.

we who are “Protestant” like to feel that we use the Holy Spirit to guide our interpretation of scripture, where you use traditions that we would say are made up by men. It just appears that you are trying to make this an us versus them argument that is pointless. I hardly think that all Protestants are even going to agree on everything.

Joe, of course you share SOME doctrines with catholics.

Best to calm down a bit and not over react to Ben. She meant NO disrespect, IMO.

 

[RevJoeBonner]

It seems both. Have a look at the responses from the Protestants in this thread.
Fair enough. The coincidences are just uncanny.
Huh! Whoa reverend, how did we get from there to the sacraments?

Your Bible tells you precisely what?
Wonderful to have the Holy Spirit at your beck and call so you can “use” Him

Well then, explain this to me. How can you protestants have differing interpretations if you are all “using” the Holy Spirit as your guide?
Newsflash! Before we had the Bible we had only tradition. Or is that something that the Holy Spirit has not revealed to you as yet?

Actually you are dead wrong there. I knew that the Protestants no more believe this than they believe that cows do jump over the moon. I know that this is not a common belief and I have been proved right by the responses that I have received so far on this thread.

That is the whole point of this thread, to test whether this is a common belief or not.

I know that you seem to be testing if it is a common belief on this thread. You have been saying that it is “hogwash” and I get the feeling that no matter how many Protestants write on this thread that you will not be satisfied. I am telling you, I HAVE HEARD IT BEFORE, alright? It may be bad theology to you and to some but many Protestants in one room will not agree on finer points like this, we can agree on essentials.

As to my Bible telling me, My Bible tells be because of my beliefs that I am a Christian. My comparison is that of one of our fundamental differences, no need to read more into it than that. You view communion as a sacrament, I do not, does that make me less a Christian. If another chooses to interpret the Bible differently does that make them less of a Christian as well?

I am fully aware that before the Bible we had only oral tradition. We now have the written word, why do we need the traditions? Now there are some who will not interpret the Word the same. You look at a verse and see it one way, but I can look at it and get another. Do you see the same verses EVERY time you read the Bible or does something new stick out to you? If you say something new, then you are reading the Bible correctly as it is the LIVING Word. I know that we all have our teachings that our individual denominations adhere to but is it proper to say, “I hold the truth and nobody else does?” What is truly sad is I have been reading over this thread and others and you and others don’t seem to have a respect for your own if they present an idea that may be foreign or does not jive with the way that you have always heard it. Isn’t what makes up the body different parts? Or do you all want them to be the head? I personally would not want to be a member of a Catholic church if this is the way you treat your own, or even those who are considering conversion. In my church we are more concerned with the essential doctrines and then we can correct what is left. Maybe you should consider this. Lets face it there are times you may only get one chance to bring a person into the church, how do you want to do it, by force and argument or reason? When Christ confronted someone did he argue with them or just ell them of the error and let them decide? Even with the pharisees he did not argue, he made his point and went on. This is why I am having a problem with this particular thread. The point was made and it is being carried on, or so it seems to me.