Did the disciples recieve the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 or Acts 2 (and what about Matthew 9?)?

[TimothyH]

Anyone else have any thoughts? I know you guys have helped me out in the past tremendously.

There is an entirely different way to look at John 20 and chapter 2 of Acts of the Apostles which I don’t think anyone has touched upon. Some see them as the two authors describing the same event, each in their own unique way.

Many will get upset and claim that such an interpretation is a denial that the events actually took place but I’ll remind these that the Bible is not a history book. Please don’t get me wrong - the receipt of the Holy Spirit in a special way at Pentecost is fact. There is zero doubt about it. It happened.

There is a peaceful harmony to the narratives when they are looked at as different ways of expressing this single truth - that the Holy Spirit was poured out in a special way upon the Church at Pentacost and that many gifts were given to the Church as a whole and to individuals within the Church. John focuses on the gifts given to the Church, forgiveness of sin and the Eucharist - Jesus “appearing in their midst.” Luke (Acts of the Apostles) continues his Gospel about the Messiah and focuses on how the mighty works of Jesus were continued by Peter, later by Paul and by the whole Church.

Instead of trying to fit some explanation around these two events by focusing on historical fact - one as ordination and the other as gift of preaching - why not just harmonize both and consider them different ways of expressing a single truth - that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church in a special way at Pentecost. That’s the way the Jewish authors wrote and rabbi’s taught anyway.

-Tim-

 

[FishyPete]

There is an entirely different way to look at John 20 and chapter 2 of Acts of the Apostles which I don’t think anyone has touched upon. Some see them as the two authors describing the same event, each in their own unique way.

Many will get upset and claim that such an interpretation is a denial that the events actually took place but I’ll remind these that the Bible is not a history book. Please don’t get me wrong - the receipt of the Holy Spirit in a special way at Pentecost is fact. There is zero doubt about it. It happened.

There is a peaceful harmony to the narratives when they are looked at as different ways of expressing this single truth - that the Holy Spirit was poured out in a special way upon the Church at Pentacost and that many gifts were given to the Church as a whole and to individuals within the Church. John focuses on the gifts given to the Church, forgiveness of sin and the Eucharist - Jesus “appearing in their midst.” Luke (Acts of the Apostles) continues his Gospel about the Messiah and focuses on how the mighty works of Jesus were continued by Peter, later by Paul and by the whole Church.

Instead of trying to fit some explanation around these two events by focusing on historical fact - one as ordination and the other as gift of preaching - why not just harmonize both and consider them different ways of expressing a single truth - that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church in a special way at Pentecost. That’s the way the Jewish authors wrote and rabbi’s taught anyway.

-Tim-

You aren’t denying that Jesus actually appeared (in John) are you? You put it in quotes above - could you clarify?

While I know the bible isn’t History in the way we look at modern history, it is undoubtedly first hand witness - so like Pope Benedict said - I trust the gospel and the gospel writers, if John said he appeared, he appeared.

 

[TimothyH]

You aren’t denying that Jesus actually appeared (in John) are you? You put it in quotes above - could you clarify?

While I know the bible isn’t History in the way we look at modern history, it is undoubtedly first hand witness - so like Pope Benedict said - I trust the gospel and the gospel writers, if John said he appeared, he appeared.

This is why I hesitated to post what I did. People get upset. I understand why. I’m not denying anything. Thank you for asking the way you did, in a nice way, in a thoughtful way. I hope I can explain…

Jesus appearing in the midst of the disciples and breathing on them is one of my favorite passages of the Bible. The word spirit comes from the Latin word spiritus which means breath. Jesus breathes on them, imparts his spiritus, and they receive the Holy Spirit. The ministry of the Church begins through the forgiveness of sins - healing and reconciling sinners to God so that they can live the divine life of Christ.

In the same way the “Mighty wind” in Acts 2 is the mighty breath of God - God’s spiritus, the same spirit which hovered over (blew across the face of) the waters at the dawn of creation. The disciples receive this spirit - the breath of God. The ministry of the Church begins. Fear is cast out and led by Peter they all speak out boldly. The Gospel is proclaimed and the disciples are not even afraid to die.

Both are true. I’m not denying anything. I’m just not focusing on the narrative as historical fact. The historical accuracy of the narrative simply isn’t important to me. I don’t deny it. Neither do I care much about it. What is important to me are the truths told in the narrative (above) for my salvation. This way I am free. I don’t get into a crisis of faith over whether Noah’s flood actually happened or not, or whether the last supper happened on Thursday or Friday, or whether the world was created in six literal days.

-Tim-

 

[FishyPete]

This is why I hesitated to post what I did. People get upset. I understand why. I’m not denying anything.

Jesus appearing in the midst of the disciples and breathing on them is one of my favorite passages of the Bible. The word spirit comes from the Latin word spiritus which means breath. Jesus breathes on them, imparts his spiritus, and they receive the Holy Spirit. The ministry of the Church begins through the forgiveness of sins - healing and reconciling sinners to God so that they can live the divine life of Christ.

In the same way the “Mighty wind” in Acts 2 is the mighty breath of God - God’s spiritus, the same spirit which hovered over (blew across the face of) the waters at the dawn of creation. The disciples receive this spirit - the breath of God. Fear is cast out and led by Peter they all speak out boldly, not even afraid to die.

I’m not denying anything. I’m just not focusing on the narrative as historical fact. The historical accuracy of the narrative simply isn’t important to me. I don’t deny it. Neither do I care much about it. What is important to me are the truths told in the narrative (above) for my salvation. This way I am free. I don’t get into a crisis of faith over whether Noah’s flood actually happened or not, or whether the last supper happened on Thursday or Friday, or whether the world was created in six literal days.

-Tim-

I view the bible in much the same way you do! However, the incident where Jesus appears is framed as a first-hand witness kind of thing. There IS history and historical fact in the bible - along with theology.

Perhaps John mixed the Pentacost Holy Spirit descent with one of the post resurrection appearances - this is reasonable - is this what you mean?

However Jesus’** physical bodily appearance after the resurrection (as presented in John) is historical fact**. I hope you don’t deny this do you? The way you spoke about it or phrased it in quotations makes it seem like you don’t believe Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection (eg. in John).

 

[TimothyH]

I view the bible in much the same way you do. However, the incident where Jesus appears is framed as a first-hand witness kind of thing. The IS history and historical fact in the bible.

Perhaps John mixed the Pentacost Holy Spirit descent with one of the post resurrection appearances - this is reasonable.

However Jesus’** physical bodily appearance after the resurrection (as presented in John) is historical fact**. I hope you don’t deny this do you? The way you spoke about it or phrased it in quotations makes it seem like you don’t believe Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection (eg. in John).

I used quotation marks because I cited scripture. It is John 20:19. I’m sorry that I did not give chapter and verse.

Some translations say that Jesus “stood among them” and others say that he appeared “in their midst.” That’s the only reason why I used quotes because I was quoting scripture.

-Tim-

 

[FishyPete]

I used quotation marks because I cited scripture. It is John 20:19. I’m sorry that I did not give chapter and verse.

Some translations say that Jesus “stood among them” and others say that he appeared “in their midst.” That’s the only reason why I used quotes because I was quoting scripture.

-Tim-

I see, thank you. Trust me Tim, I view things much the same way as you - almost exactly like you have stated it. But I am convinced in the history of the Bible in many ways too.

I don’t know if you will answer this directly, but you do believe Jesus appeared to his disciples at some point after his resurrection (e.g in John) (the dates and times and to whom/when exactly really isn’t what matters) - do you agree with this at least?

 

[TimothyH]

I see, thank you. Trust me Tim, I view things much the same way as you - almost exactly like you have stated it. But I am convinced in the history of the Bible in many ways too.

I don’t know if you will answer this directly, but you do believe Jesus appeared to his disciples at some point after his resurrection (e.g in John) (the dates and times and to whom/when exactly really isn’t what matters) - do you agree with this at least?

Yes, Jesus physically rose from the dead and walked with his disciples. He ate with them and conversed with them, and told Peter to “Feed my sheep.” I believe that.

I’m convinced it is history too. I’m just not focused on the historicity of it. I’ve moved past that to the deeper truths contained in it. That’s all. I trust that God will explain it all to me should I make it to Heaven.

-Tim-

 

[FishyPete]

Yes, Jesus physically rose from the dead and walked with his disciples. He ate with them and conversed with them, and told Peter to “Feed my sheep.” I believe that.

I’m convinced it is history too. I’m just not focused on the historicity of it. I’ve moved past that to the deeper truths contained in it. That’s all. I trust that God will explain it all to me should I make it to Heaven.

-Tim-

You are a good man. God bless.

 

[TimothyH]

You are a good man. God bless.

You are a good man too. Nice to chat with.

-Tim-

 

[FishyPete]

Any other thoughts are most welcome from the great/intelligent Catholics here!

 

[BeingSaved]

Further, is this true or not?

Looking at the disciples’ moment in John 21, this occurs prior to Pentecost, so we must understand that moment as the Lord Spirit’s coming upon the disciples as an anointing for the events that would follow. The Lord was providing them with a visible symbol (i.e. the Lord’s breath) to show them they had received power from God (including the ability to forgive sins). (In Hebrew, the word for “spirit” and “breath” are nearly identical). This anointing was not a substitute for the permanent indwelling of the Spirit, which was yet to come for these disciples.

Later in Acts 2, the disciples received the indwelling of the Spirit, which was a permanent seal of their faith.

Is this correct from a Catholic perspective or general biblical understanding?

I have an idea in answer to this,…
from what Paul wrote, “Be you a partaker of my grace”. When Jesus breathed, although He hadn’t ascended and the H.SP hadn’t descended,…the 12 partook of the Holy Spirit flowing from the anointing on Jesus. Today, people can partake of the H. Sp’s anointing that is on other people, as opposed to going to God, spending time with Him themselves and paying the price to receive this directly from Him.

 

[FishyPete]

I have an idea in answer to this,…
from what Paul wrote, “Be you a partaker of my grace”. When Jesus breathed, although He hadn’t ascended and the H.SP hadn’t descended,…the 12 partook of the Holy Spirit flowing from the anointing on Jesus. Today, people can partake of the H. Sp’s anointing that is on other people, as opposed to going to God, spending time with Him themselves and paying the price to receive this directly from Him.

please provide me a location in the bible where St. Paul said that. It doesn’t seem to be in my bible.