A Question for Protestants regarding the Apostles

[FrJohnB]

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.

This is funny. Now benedictus2 is going to argue with a Protestant minister who has heard this interpretation. It seems that I am not the only one who has heard this interpretation as well from a Protestant. It seems to me that continuing ion this vein would be fruitless unless one wishes to be one who keeps score and says, there are this many I have heard it to this many have not.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

But it is not common belief judging by the number of ratio of protestant responses on this thread. But I could be wrong. However, Catholic respondents have not come accross this from their protestant friend/acquaintances either.

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?

Would you care to tell me where in my post I said that you are not a Christian?

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?

In the same way that the canon of scripture was measured against tradition, so will its interpretation be measured against tradition.

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?”

I don’t say I hold the truth. I say the Church does and I can only say that based on what Christ has promised.

But this is not the subject of this thread.

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.

May I ask who you are referring to? Which thread?

Isn’t what makes up the body different parts? Or do you all want them to be the head?

And where did I even hint that in any of my posts?

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.

If you are truly convinced of the truth of the Church and do not convert because of your hurt feelings, then that is nothing more than pride. You will have to answer to that before God because He has already painstakingly led you to the truth and you refuse because of your hurt feelings. It is always about you.

If you do not want to convert because you do not see the truth of Christ, then that is another matter.

People should only convert if they are 100% convinced that the Catholic Church is Christ’s church. What is the point of converting if you do not believe her doctrines anyway?

In my church we are more concerned with the essential doctrines and then we can correct what is left.

And who determines what is essential and what is not essential?

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?

Certainly not by force. Argument and reason are the same. We use arguments to reason.

Do you know that you sound very much like Padrej and FrJohnB?

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.

My friend, if you stop responding then it will not be carried on. You are annoyed with me for defending my case and yet you keep firing back with your responses.

Aahh I get it. You’re saying I should shut up but you will keep yapping, is that it?

 

[RevJoeBonner]

But it is not common belief judging by the number of ratio of protestant responses on this thread. But I could be wrong. However, Catholic respondents have not come accross this from their protestant friend/acquaintances either.
Would you care to tell me where in my post I said that you are not a Christian?
In the same way that the canon of scripture was measured against tradition, so will its interpretation be measured against tradition.
I don’t say I hold the truth. I say the Church does and I can only say that based on what Christ has promised.

But this is not the subject of this thread.
May I ask who you are referring to? Which thread?
And where did I even hint that in any of my posts?
If you are truly convinced of the truth of the Church and do not convert because of your hurt feelings, then that is nothing more than pride. You will have to answer to that before God because He has already painstakingly led you to the truth and you refuse because of your hurt feelings. It is always about you.

If you do not want to convert because you do not see the truth of Christ, then that is another matter.

People should only convert if they are 100% convinced that the Catholic Church is Christ’s church. What is the point of converting if you do not believe her doctrines anyway?

And who determines what is essential and what is not essential?
Certainly not by force. Argument and reason are the same. We use arguments to reason.

Do you know that you sound very much like Padrej and FrJohnB?

My friend, if you stop responding then it will not be carried on. You are annoyed with me for defending my case and yet you keep firing back with your responses.

Aahh I get it. You’re saying I should shut up but you will keep yapping, is that it?

I want to address you question of Where I was referring to in the disrespect area. Post #1 you start by putting parenthesis around Catholic Priest so as to make one think this this is in doubt. Post 7 you said you had a “feeling the “priest” was making it up…” and post 14 you refer to padrej in brackets as “who claims to be an Anglican Bishop.” If I as a first time reader read into this and got that you are seemingly dubious as the the legitimacy of another why would you put " " or ( ) around what you say? Are those charitable or even Christlike things. I have also gone back to the thread you linked to and if you are that argumentative with the clergy, why would I want to join a Catholic church?

Who are these padrej and FrJohn you refer to? I see one post on this thread of the latter. is he the person that you put in " " as being a priest?

As to the not being a Christian why would you respond to that if you were not pricked by it? obviously it must have been felt.
To the “who determines what is essential and what is not essential? Certainly not by force. Argument and reason are the same. We use arguments to reason.” I suppose I could bring up the inquisition and say forced confessions were done so by “reason” or “tradition” but Let us not go there.

 

[FrJohnB]

I want to address you question of Where I was referring to in the disrespect area. Post #1 you start by putting parenthesis around Catholic Priest so as to make one think this this is in doubt. Post 7 you said you had a “feeling the “priest” was making it up…” and post 14 you refer to padrej in brackets as “who claims to be an Anglican Bishop.” If I as a first time reader read into this and got that you are seemingly dubious as the the legitimacy of another why would you put " " or ( ) around what you say? Are those charitable or even Christlike things. I have also gone back to the thread you linked to and if you are that argumentative with the clergy, why would I want to join a Catholic church?

Who are these padrej and FrJohn you refer to? I see one post on this thread of the latter. is he the person that you put in " " as being a priest?

As to the not being a Christian why would you respond to that if you were not pricked by it? obviously it must have been felt.
To the “who determines what is essential and what is not essential? Certainly not by force. Argument and reason are the same. We use arguments to reason.” I suppose I could bring up the inquisition and say forced confessions were done so by “reason” or “tradition” but Let us not go there.

The inquisition Reverend is not a nice subject to bring up here. I am sure benedictus2 meant nothing by the reason and tradition comments. As you say, “let us not go there.”

At this point I am willing to yield that it may not be as common as I thought this “theory” as it was described. BUT benedictus2 you do have another Protestant minister who has heard of it and has cited possible source for it as being from one of the TV evangelists. They can have some wacky theology to start with some of them. I hope that this has satisfied you quest for answers.

 

[guanophore]

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

Along these same lines, I have also commonly heard that Peter erred on choosing Matthias to succeed Judas, and that “God’s choice was Paul”.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Thanks for this feedback RevJoe. I agree that it is not correct to assume one is “lying” just because a certain tale is outside their experience. I have my doubts as to the identity of several members here, who do not seem to be what they claim

I agree with you that it is an exegesis, but I don’t regard it as plausible or acceptable!

BTW, welcome to CAF!

“Now, could all please continue with the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.” ~Data

 

[guanophore]

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.

Does not taking a verse out of context demonstrate that it is an improper exegesis?

I appreciate the references you brought to the thread.

Part of not being Catholic is that we DO NOT share your doctrines.

Actually, it is likely that you share about 80% of our 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.

No, we receive you as our brother in Christ.

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.

This is off topic in this thread, but I would like to throw out a couple questions for you that perhaps we could discuss in another thread?

Why do you think that Catholics cannot read the bible the same way you do, under the guidance of the HS? Do you think that, if I pray and ask God to open my heart and mind to His Word as I am reading it, He will not do this for me because I am Catholic?

Also, why could the HS not work through tradition, even if it is “of men” (which Sacred Tradition is not). For example, altar calls are a tradition of men, and it seems to me that God works through them quite a bit.

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.

I don’t think so, I think that the OP (that means Original Poster or Orig. Post) has never heard this before, and that there are several others who have not either. That does not mean it is not pandered about, as you have testified. I agree with you, that does not mean it is “common”. It may be the “priest” who PM’ed (that means Private Message) the OP is listening to Tony Evans a lot!

 

[benidict]

in all fairness. i must say, in my upbringing in the Christian school system, i believe i heard the theory given by one of my teachers, in church history class, that the apostles did wait a little too long in jerusalem. and persecution because of such fanned the flames of evangelism. and is what got the Church to move out to fullfill the great commission. again, no doctrine being taught. just that this theory has been around since i was in highschool. that was 23 years ago. peace

 

[benidict]

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.

bens a she? wow cool! i really didnt know.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Being a Christian is like being pregnant. You either are, or you aren’t.

However, due to the fact that you have been separated from the Apostolic Traditions, you are missing part of the Truth that was committed to the Church. You stand in the tradition of Apollos.

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 answered your own question. the Traditions show us how to interpret the writing that was produced by them. the must go together, or there will be misunderstandings.

Also, consider this. If the Sacred Traditions were sufficient to produce the Holy Scriptures, why would they diminish in quality after some of them were written? How can the Word of God “degrade”?

You look at a verse and see it one way, but I can look at it and get another.

This is the reason that Sacred Tradition is necessary.

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?”

The Catholic Church affirms that the HS works through the ecclesial communities of our separated brethren to bring all of us into a unified Truth.

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.

Some of us are a little snarky because we thinkj that posters are not who they claim to be.

And, you are right, sometimes we are a lot harder on Catholics, or in my case, people who CLAIM to be Catholic and reject the teachings of the Church.

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.

It would be much better not to claim to be Catholic, or think about calling oneself a Catholic unless one is willing to embrace the whole Gospel as it was handed down to us from the Apostles. “If you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth”.

In my church we are more concerned with the essential doctrines and then we can correct what is left. Maybe you should consider this.

I apologize if this was already asked, but can you point us to the scripture that identifies which doctrines are essential and which are not? I am happy to consider this proposal.

 

[guanophore]

But it is not common belief judging by the number of ratio of protestant responses on this thread. But I could be wrong.

From a research point of view, that does not constitute an acceptable sample size.

If you are truly convinced of the truth of the Church and do not convert because of your hurt feelings, then that is nothing more than pride. You will have to answer to that before God because He has already painstakingly led you to the truth and you refuse because of your hurt feelings. It is always about you.

I think he is saying that the hurt feelings might be avoided with a different approach, and therefore will not pose an obstacle. I am sure he will correct me if I misunderstood.

If you do not want to convert because you do not see the truth of Christ, then that is another matter.

It seems, from his posts, that he has already seen the Truth of Christ, and therefore, would not see himself in need of conversion.

People should convert if they are 100% convinced that the Catholic Church is Christ's church. What is the point of converting if you do not believe her doctrines anyway?

I don’t think he said anything about being interested in converting, anymore than you said anything about his not being Christian!

Do you know that you sound very much like Padrej and FrJohnB?

If that is true, which I have not read enough to determine, could it not be a coincidence?

Aahh I get it. You’re saying I should shut up but you will keep yapping, is that it?

This does not seem very charitable.

 

[benidict]

just for the record. i have had enough pm with Father John, to state that i believe unequivocably, that yes…he is a Real Catholic Priest. and i have had enough pm with Padrej to state unequivicobly that yes… he is a Priest in the Episcopalian communion who is strongly considering becoming a Roman Catholic. peace be upon both of them. and Grace. there is no conspiracy between the two of them to sew false doctrine or anything else here. both are upstanding men of God. just as my Catholic brothers/sisters here are the same. we really need to support one another in prayer, and not try to tear one another down. we have enough problems with fundamentalist and the like. nipping at our heals. i for one will refuse to turn the sword on my own colors. Peace and Grace to all of us. :grouphug:

 

[guanophore]

just for the record. i have had enough pm with Father John, to state that i believe unequivocably, that yes…he is a Real Catholic Priest. and i have had enough pm with Padrej to state unequivicobly that yes… he is a Priest in the Episcopalian communion who is strongly considering becoming a Roman Catholic. peace be upon both of them. and Grace. there is no conspiracy between the two of them to sew false doctrine or anything else here. both are upstanding men of God. just as my Catholic brothers/sisters here are the same. we really need to support one another in prayer, and not try to tear one another down. we have enough problems with fundamentalist and the like. nipping at our heals. i for one will refuse to turn the sword on my own colors. Peace and Grace to all of us. :grouphug:

Thank you for this. Your testimony counts for a lot.

I became skeptical at some early posts, and I have not read any recent ones, so this is helpful.

 

[benedictus2]

This is funny. Now benedictus2 is going to argue with a Protestant minister who has heard this interpretation.

There you go again Father. If you carefully read my reply to RevJoe, I am not arguing over whether he heard it or not. My contention is that it is not as common as you claim it is.

It seems that I am not the only one who has heard this interpretation as well from a Protestant. It seems to me that continuing ion this vein would be fruitless unless one wishes to be one who keeps score and says, there are this many I have heard it to this many have not.

Well no. I started this thread to verify your claims and that is all.

That this thread will mutate (which most threads tend to do) is another matter altogether.

 

[benedictus2]

I want to address you question of Where I was referring to in the disrespect area. Post #1 you start by putting parenthesis around Catholic Priest so as to make one think this this is in doubt.

Post #1, that this priest is priest was very much in doubt. You have to remember, we are doing this on the internet. Everyone can make claims. Hmmm, maybe I should have called my self Queen of England
Quite a few of us had a big question mark on that one. My thought then was if he is a priest at all, he is probably one of those renegade liberals judging by his post. The reason that posters did not believe he was a priest was based on his posts which could hardly be called Catholic.

Post 7 you said you had a “feeling the “priest” was making it up…”

And yes I did because I have debated quite a few protestants before and this issue did not even come up.

and post 14 you refer to padrej in brackets as “who claims to be an Anglican Bishop.” [/quite]
For the same reason as stated above.

If I as a first time reader read into this and got that you are seemingly dubious as the the legitimacy of another why would you put " " or ( ) around what you say?

You got that right. Now why would questioning someone’s identity which no one knows for sure be disrespectful?
Are those charitable or even Christlike things.
Yes, if they’re true identity is in doubt.

I have also gone back to the thread you linked to and if you are that argumentative with the clergy, why would I want to join a Catholic church?

And why would I not be argumentative with a clergy who is spreading error.? So you expect obeisance just because you are clergy.

When people come to the forum, especially apologetics at that, then they must be prepared to do debate - clergy or not.

Even more so must they be on the spot with their posts precisely because they are clergy. People put weight on what they write and when they write error they can lead others to error.

Who are these padrej and FrJohn you refer to? I see one post on this thread of the latter. is he the person that you put in " " as being a priest?
Yes you got that right. And as I said before I found it really uncanny that you make your first post ever in this forum, on this thread just roughtly a few minutes after Fr John pmed me to claim that he heard it from evangelicals.

As to the not being a Christian why would you respond to that if you were not pricked by it? obviously it must have been felt. {/quote]
Huh! I was referring to you. I said when did I say you were not a Christian because you were claiming that I somehow said that. So again, when did I say that you are not a Christian?

To the “who determines what is essential and what is not essential? Certainly not by force. Argument and reason are the same. We use arguments to reason.” I suppose I could bring up the inquisition and say forced confessions were done so by “reason” or “tradition” but Let us not go there

.
How did you get from reason to the inquisition. Sorry but your thinking is all over the place.

But hey don’t stop. If you want to go there, do go there. It’s a free forum. Just tell me which thread and I will participate. But do be prepared to hear about the Protestant inquisition as well.

 

[benedictus2]

At this point I am willing to yield that it may not be as common as I thought this “theory” as it was described. BUT benedictus2 you do have another Protestant minister who has heard of it and has cited possible source for it as being from one of the TV evangelists. They can have some wacky theology to start with some of them. I hope that this has satisfied you quest for answers.

And I never doubted that some protestants would have believed that. But you said that it is a common belief which it seems is hardly the case.

 

[benedictus2]

Along these same lines, I have also commonly heard that Peter erred on choosing Matthias to succeed Judas, and that “God’s choice was Paul”.

If that isn’t one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. For one thing, Matthias was chosen by ballot, and if Christ wanted Paul to be one of the 12 He could have easily done that.

Whoever is doing this kind of exegesis has to go back to theology school.

 

[benedictus2]

 From a research point of view, that does not constitute an acceptable sample size.

Yes, it is a rather small sample size but one can hardly claim it is that common if Lutherans and Non-denoms have not heard of it.

I think he is saying that the hurt feelings might be avoided with a different approach, and therefore will not pose an obstacle. I am sure he will correct me if I misunderstood.

And this is what I find frustrating. We are in an apologetics thread. There is no need to muddy the water with this kind drama and side issues.
Why can’t we just focus on the arguments and rebut accordingly? Why does it have to be steered into personal issues?

It seems, from his posts, that he has already seen the Truth of Christ, and therefore, would not see himself in need of conversion.

Ooops, sorry, I meant there the Truth of the Church. Does that classify as a Freudian slip

I don’t think he said anything about being interested in converting, anymore than you said anything about his not being Christian!

The “you” in my post is not particularly referring to RevJoe more like a “one” or “a person” in general. He was referring to Padrej who is thinking of converting, that is why I said if Padrej converts not believing 100% what the Church teaches then what is the point of converting?

If that is true, which I have not read enough to determine, could it not be a coincidence?

Yes, I have said as much. I also said it is uncanny.

This does not seem very charitable.

Not when I am replying to RevJoe’s ” 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.”

I think it is a fair comment.

 

[benedictus2]

just for the record. i have had enough pm with Father John, to state that i believe unequivocably, that yes…he is a Real Catholic Priest. and i have had enough pm with Padrej to state unequivicobly that yes… he is a Priest in the Episcopalian communion who is strongly considering becoming a Roman Catholic. peace be upon both of them. and Grace. there is no conspiracy between the two of them to sew false doctrine or anything else here. both are upstanding men of God. just as my Catholic brothers/sisters here are the same. we really need to support one another in prayer, and not try to tear one another down. we have enough problems with fundamentalist and the like. nipping at our heals. i for one will refuse to turn the sword on my own colors. Peace and Grace to all of us. :grouphug:

And this is exactly what my problem with FrJohn’s post was. He was posting more like a Protestant tearing the teachings of the Church down.

Coming from a protestant what he wrote would have been par for the course, but from a priest? It becomes doubly detrimental because of the perceived authority.

I have debated other Catholics on the thread who are arguing against the teaching of the Churchl The thread and posts we were referring to were no different.

I don’t think one should let a lie be, just because someone of one’s colour said it. As I’ve said many times before, Nestorious was a bishop. Our allegiance should be to the Truth.

 

[Dokimas]

I apologize if this was already asked, but can you point us to the scripture that identifies which doctrines are essential and which are not? I am happy to consider this proposal.

Joe, IMO, Guanophore’s baiting you. He and others like to make this challenge knowing there is no verse that says, '… is essential.