Prodigal's Isle

[LionHeart777]

You do rather frequently, you deny the HS, you deny that John and Jesus both said the water and Spirit were to different things. You deny that Paul said above that it is not the washing of the body but an apeal a repentant heart and mind that it represents. Water baptisum does not save the baptisum of the HS saves and the 2 are not joined just read your verse again. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience,

The thing that defiles a man comes from his heart no water will clean this. Repentance the inward action a man takes comes first then it manifest in the body producing works, like turning away from sinning. But it all starts in the heart and mind. Only God knows that part no man or priest can administer the HS that is a job and ministry of God Himself. Now catholic priest may think they have this ability and I thank God its not true. Can you imagine some man being able to allow or disallow salvation. A man can only hope to keep himself in check and know his own heart and mind, let alone know the motives of another mans heart. In short men can be fooled and bribed, and be wolfs in sheep’s clothing.
Reply With Quote

I think it is us who are affirming Jesus’ words in John 3:5

"Cyril of Jerusalem

‘Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, Unless a man be born again'--and he adds the words of water and of the Spirit’–`he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it’ (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350])." (emphasis mine) (catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9410frs.asp)

"On Baptism:
By: Tertullian
“[inter A. D. 200 / 206]” [10]

“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! …But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!” [11]

“After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, — (a practice derived) from the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, men were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called ‘Christ,’ from the ‘chrism,’ which is ‘the unction;’ which, when made spiritual, furnished an appropriate name to the Lord, because He was ‘anointed’ with the Spirit by God the Father; as written in the Acts: ‘For truly they were gathered together in this city against Your Holy Son whom You have anointed.’** Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs carnally, (i.e. on the body,) but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.**" [11] (emphasis mine)

[10] (Jurgens, 126)

[11] (newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm) (accessed 8/ 17/ 09)

 

[LionHeart777]

.I notice you use no scripture at all to support your claim. Your testimony stands on what those taught after the Apostles. This bring us back to a false dichotomy the definition implies in itself that their is more than a single answer.

Also Michael,

Now that there are Scriptures before us on this thread, I will restate what I said earlier:

**"…Regarding your personal interpretation of Scripture about Baptism:

I believe that it is logical to conclude that if what you teach is correct, than it seems to me that that would be the view of Baptism that we see held by those who came after the Apostles. It is not. In fact, if you want to look around at those who have valid Apostolic succession (i.e. the Orthodox and Catholics), they are in agreement.

That being said; there is no contradiction between the ECF’s and the Apostles regarding Baptism; rather a contradiction between your interpretation of the Bible and the ECF’s.**"

As you can see no sola ECF’s, no Sola Scriptura, but rather Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Pax]

michaelsmth626 in Christ,

There is plenty of scripture that speaks of water baptism in connection with receiving the Holy Spirit, being a new creation, and the forgiveness of sin. Before getting to the scriptures, it might be worth pointing out that this is not a situation where the Holy Spirit is only given by God in one way, and one way only. God is free to give the Holy Spirit in anyway and at anytime of His choosing. If we find God giving the Holy Spirit at times other than at baptism, then praise be to God for his generosity and precious gifts. Such gifting outside of baptism does not preclude receiving the Holy Spirit in water baptism. To draw that conclusion is a serious error in logic, and defies the clear teaching of scripture and the Church. No arguments on the efficacy of water baptism arose until after the Reformation. Please think about that.

You made the following comments:

Johns claim about baptism, the man that introduced it.

Quote:
Mathew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Jesus reiterates the same just before He baptizes the Apostles.

Quote:
Acts 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

The 2 are distinctly different. Do you have some evidence other than the church fathers like scripture that can place the 2 into one. I have quoted both Jesus and the founder of the act of baptism and they both say that there are 2 one of water and one of the Spirit.

Yes, they are distinctly different and you have overlooked the obvious difference. John’s was a baptism of repentance. It was not a baptism that remits sin nor did it bring with it the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is the point John is making in contrasting his baptism to that of the Christian baptism instituted by Christ. This becomes abundantly clear through a demonstration of the point in Acts 19:1-6 which says:

WHILE APOLLOS was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

John’s baptism and New Covenant baptism are both water baptisms. The former is one of repentance, while the latter is one that remits sin and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit.

You gave your analysis of Jesus conversation with Nicodemus. The Catholic view on this passage of scripture is IMHO the correct one. The passage says:

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The syntax in the passage leads to the Catholic view. First of all Nicodemus is recognizing that Jesus is speaking of being born again as an adult and not as an infant. He recognizes that Jesus is saying that a man must somehow and in some way be born a “second time.” This second birth is described In the passage by Jesus as being "born of water and spirit.’ In Jesus response we see a linkage using one preposition to govern two coordinated nouns which affirms that “one birth”, that is the second birth, associated with “water” and “Spirit” is what is clearly meant in the passage.

This syntactical linkage poses a problem if two births, natural and spiritual,
are proposed. Advocates of this view circumvent this syntactical problem
and point to v. 6 to support their view, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The problem with this is the conjunctive relationship between “water” and “Spirit” in v. 5, and a contrastive relationship between “flesh” and
“Spirit” in v. 6. It is therefore clear that “water” in v. 5 cannot be equated with
“flesh” in v. 6.

This becomes even more clear when we consider that the Jews did not describe natural childbirth in terms of water. Moreover, John uses entirely different terminology is this very gospel to describe natural birth. In John 1:12-13 we see the apostle contrasting natural human reproduction to that of becoming children of God and he uses the following terms:

… who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John sets it up in his gospel using these terms so that being born of water and spirit will not be misunderstood. Likewise, the entire context of John 3 is water baptism, and right after we read the passages involving Nicodemus, the scripture immediately points out that

22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized.

The entire discussion of being born again of water and spirit is all about water baptism and is contrasting the baptism of John with the Christian baptism instituted by Jesus.

I hope this beginning on baptism is helpful…there is still more.

 

[LionHeart777]

God is free to give the Holy Spirit in anyway and at anytime of His choosing. If we find God giving the Holy Spirit at times other than at baptism, then praise be to God for his generosity and precious gifts. Such gifting outside of baptism does not preclude receiving the Holy Spirit in water baptism.

Pax:thumbsup:

Thank you! I tried to touch on that when I mentioned Acts 10 and the thief on the cross (I’m unsure if he received the Holy Spirit.) This is a good clarification so that no one gets confused. Despite what I posted by Cyril of Alexandria and Tertullian, or whomever–the Church has the final say (in case either or was implying that salvation is absolutely impossible w/o water Baptism-I don’t know if that’s what one or both were implying-probably not.)

 

[michaelsmth626]

Michael,

You assume that the ECF’s have one teaching on Baptism and the Apostles and Jesus have another. If you are wrong and they are all in agreement, then to pit them against one another would be a false dichotomy (I think). The ECF’s are not inspired but rather show how the early Christians understood Baptism. The Apostles are who were inspired, the ECF’s help guide us to an orthodox understanding. I’m not sure about what you were saying about who the ECF’s are, they are not just Roman Bishops. They are Bishops, apologists, writers from all over. They are an early witness to early Christianity…that is a fact.

Even though you will probably not listen, I will give you some Scripture (Paul c already pointed out relevant passages.)

.

Thank you for a very thought full reply. I assure you I have carefully studied the Catholic doctrine and many protestant teachings. I have made it a point for years to focus on differences in teachings not for the pleasure of conflict but to know the truth. There are differences in teaching within the CC its self. But I’m an equal researcher seeker. What I have discovered is that knowledge of the LORD is an journey like any other form of education you keep going higher. The key is to not be completely dogmatic. More than a few times when I think I have a handle on it the Lord will pull my ear to listen to someone teach “which I do all the time by radio” an apparent contradiction to some passages but yet it has substance to support it. At times this learning process has me exactly where the scriptures say. [work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.]

The main reason I enjoy forums like this is that it test my faith, it challenges my heart and mind in the Spirit. You all come up with some very good points and the Spirit has provided, “spurs” me on in greater and greater understanding and for that I thank you all. For me to give that relationship up and listen to one opinion and follow a single man is quite impossible. I have reached the step I now stand on buy making choices not by blindly following. By carefully comparing what is said and what is taught, listen listen and listen some more. Each mans steps are directed by the Lord how then shall a man know his own way?

Did you read what I briefly wrote to paul c about Acts CH 10?
The involvement of an Angel and visions puts it in a very small category in scripture.
It places it along side Abraham, Mosses, Daniel, Mary and Joesph. An Angel and visions in one chapter about the Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit is not to be taken lightly.
Post 813

 

[Pax]

Pax:thumbsup:

Thank you! I tried to touch on that when I mentioned Acts 10 and the thief on the cross (I’m unsure if he received the Holy Spirit.) This is a good clarification so that no one gets confused. Despite what I posted by Cyril of Alexandria and Tertullian, or whomever–the Church has the final say (in case either or was implying that salvation is absolutely impossible w/o water Baptism-I don’t know if that’s what one or both were implying-probably not.)

LionHeart777 in Christ,

Baptism is certainly the norm because it is a New Covenant oath(sacrament), and we see this in Mark 16:16 which says:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This is probably the point of the ECF’s you quoted. Nevertheless, God is merciful and extends His mercy as He pleases.

You are right to point to the ECF’s. They clearly exemplify what the early Church understood and taught about baptism and many other doctrines as they learned them from the apostles and their immediate successors. That history represents some serious and persuasive bona fides for Catholic teaching.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

… For me to give that relationship up and listen to one opinion and follow a single man is quite impossible.

michaelsmth in Christ,

If this is a reference to following the Pope, then I am certain that you misunderstand the papacy.

 

[LionHeart777]

My offering you a choice between Jesus and John TB as opposed to your church fathers, you then implyed it is a false dichotomy indicates you believe that their is more than one answer. Your lack of scriptural reference and instead reference post Apostle history indicates you at least give the same weight to the fathers of the CC as you do the recorded words of John and Jesus.

I thought you said something to the effect of:

if Jesus and the Apostles were on one side and the ECF’s were on the other, who would I believe?

My point is–regarding Baptism, I believe that they would be on the same side; i.e. teach the same doctrine. That’s why I said I thought it was a false Dichotomy.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, P7, that’s my destination. Everything else is a brief stop on the way. Sorry for ignoring your points. Was not aware i was doing so. So many people throwing stones that it’s hard to give each person who actually is trying to help the attention he deserves.

Yes, i have you and others to thank for showing me the meaning of Matthew 16:19. I can see from Acts that the Apostles intended to have successors for those of their numbers who were lost. Not sure whether they had their eyes on the centuries to come, or were just trying to keep things an even dozen (or odd baker’s dozen) until Christ returned. I see nothing wrong with the idea that the survivors were wanting to continue the Apostolic tradition by appointing the most trusted among their ranks to continue shepherding the flock after the original Apostles were gone.

So if you want to bring some points to my attention that i’ve overlooked (not intentionally, of course, for i’ve done my best to respond to everyone; but i do have a tendency to miss the forest for the trees) then by all means, please do so! However, i think that you and others have helped me to see the truth of the previous paragraph and i don’t need much more convincing regarding them.

Now since you ask, my present concern has to do with Peter. (And i’m almost afraid to mention this, for i’ve appeared to have struck a nerve with some by even making the suggestion. So if what i ask offends you as much as it has already offended others, then please let me know and i’ll keep my questions to myself.) You see, what i’ve failed to really see until now, and what frightens me (now that i do see it) to the point where i can barely hide it behind my mask of poor humor, is this whole question of the apparent deception of Peter. That is that which Jesus appears to accuse the Apostle. One moment Jesus says this:

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:17)

And the next moment Jesus says this to Peter:

“Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

(Matthew 16:23)

And these Satanic-inspired words Peter utters AFTER Jesus gives him the authority to loose and bind! I just don’t know what to make of this, P7. The words of James keep ringing in my mind’s ears:

Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be!

(James 3:10)

And i’m dismayed that out of the same mouth (Peter’s) came the blessing of faith, and the cursing of anti-faith. My trust in Peter has been shaken, P7. I hope that you will help restore my faith in him.

Dear Soc,

     I  don't believe the apostles were  thinking and acting  in the very first yeras in term of future centuries. They were waiting for a parusia which was supposed to be likely quite near.  Jesus appears to have left this possibility, of  a  near parusia,  open.  Clearly He  therefore did not  give direct instructions  about how to manage the Church in the next centuries and millennia.  The question of how to govern the Church after the apostles and before the parusia came up eventually. It was a new question. Needing as such a development.

We know those in authority within the Church were appointed by apostolic authority since the very first years , not only Matthias, but the deacons and so on. The hands of those with apostolic authority would pass it.
The picture of the very first post-apostolic generations appears to tell us the the way after the apostles and before the parusia was a Church were the bishops, selected by the apostles, had succeeded them in the evangelization and sanctification.
Most protestant brothers tell us they know the Church ie the leadership of the apostolic and sub.apostolic Church got it wrong with what above, that they went somehow against Jesus’ message. How they know that is for me a riddle.

Back to Matthew 16.

Peter’s comprehension and maturity were growing by living with the Lord, as for the other apostles. What we see in this chapter is a huge step forward,and the need for further growth. Jesus is not telling him
since you now say so, BTW, then i won’t give you the keys.

Jesus accepts and appoints Peter as he is.
He is the one nearest to Him, answering Him, walking towards Him on the water. And experiencing moments of failure. Because he’s the one who experiences the human limits in going towards Jesus as much as possible, even walking on the water.
In that moment Peter is called Satan because he, out of love, is severely tempting the Lord. He and the others have still to grow by living alongside Jesus, and then by having everything reminded by the Holy Spirit. They are being trained.

That has nothing to do with Him, and the apostolic college, being protected from teaching error once in charge of Jesus’ Church.

I hope this can help.

Bless you

PS Don,t worry about the ignored points. I will present them again, when and if they can be useful in your journey.

 

[michaelsmth626]

michaelsmth626 in Christ,
Yes, they are distinctly different and you have overlooked the obvious difference. John’s was a baptism of repentance. It was not a baptism that remits sin nor did it bring with it the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is the point John is making in contrasting his baptism to that of the Christian baptism instituted by Christ. This becomes abundantly clear through a demonstration of the point in Acts 19:1-6 which says:

Have you even read any of my post that is exactly what I have been saying. DUH

John’s baptism and New Covenant baptism are both water baptisms. The former is one of repentance, while the latter is one that remits sin and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Again in complete agreement with what I said. As long as New Covenant baptism means the baptism of Jesus in the HS.

You gave your analysis of Jesus conversation with Nicodemus. The Catholic view on this passage of scripture is IMHO the correct one. The passage says:

The syntax in the passage leads to the Catholic view. First of all Nicodemus is recognizing that Jesus is speaking of being born again as an adult and not as an infant. He recognizes that Jesus is saying that a man must somehow and in some way be born a “second time.” This second birth is described In the passage by Jesus as being "born of water and spirit.’ In Jesus response we see a linkage using one preposition to govern two coordinated nouns which affirms that “one birth”, that is the second birth, associated with “water” and “Spirit” is what is clearly meant in the passage.

This syntactical linkage poses a problem if two births, natural and spiritual,
are proposed. Advocates of this view circumvent this syntactical problem
and point to v. 6 to support their view, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The problem with this is the conjunctive relationship between “water” and “Spirit” in v. 5, and a contrastive relationship between “flesh” and
“Spirit” in v. 6. It is therefore clear that “water” in v. 5 cannot be equated with
“flesh” in v. 6.

This becomes even more clear when we consider that the Jews did not describe natural childbirth in terms of water. Moreover, John uses entirely different terminology is this very gospel to describe natural birth. In John 1:12-13 we see the apostle contrasting natural human reproduction to that of becoming children of God and he uses the following terms:

The syntax is explained in the following sentence I highlighted them in the same color
Jesus said water and Spirit then in the next sentence he said gave the definition.

5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi Michael,

shamefully, I fear I entered just to argue and try to win a debate; I apologize. One purpose that I served I hope, was to challenge your personal interpretations of Scripture w/ interpretations that have been passed down from almost the beginning until the present day. Such challenges to my own interpretations really caused me to see things differently. I think I can pull back now and say that we will probably “agree to disagree” for the time being. May God bless you on your journey!

All, sorry for the brief detour.

Nick

 

[michaelsmth626]

LionHeart777 in Christ,

Baptism is certainly the norm because it is a New Covenant oath(sacrament), and we see this in Mark 16:16 which says:

This is probably the point of the ECF’s you quoted. Nevertheless, God is merciful and extends His mercy as He pleases.

He who believes and is baptized will be saved

So Pax just which baptism is this? the one of John or the one of Jesus?

I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

I suppose that the answers would depend upon the definition of the terms.

A wise move, as Socrates says:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether.

(Phaedrus, 237)

I checked the online dictionary to see how they might apply. The online Websters says the following about each. I am only including from the Websters that which seems to be related to binding and loosing as used in scripture. The other uses or connotations are not included.

discern:
–to detect with the eyes <discerned a figure approaching through the fog; to detect with senses other than vision
–to recognize or identify as separate and distinct : discriminate
–to come to know or recognize mentally

intransitive verb
: to see or understand the difference

determine:
transitive verb
– to fix conclusively or authoritatively <determine national policy; to decide by judicial sentence ; to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities.

–to fix the boundaries of; to limit in extent or scope
–to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation

intransitive verb
to come to a decision

synonyms: decide, discover

Based on the definitions I would say that binding and loosing in scripture is to both decide and to discern.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)

Perhaps you are correct. I’m trying to wrap my mind around this whole binding and loosing process, as it’s meaning is unclear to me. So please allow me to take a closer look by making a more specific inquiry.

Do you think that Peter discerns and determines doctrine first, and then God gives His nod of approval, since He has put Peter in charge? Or do you rather think that God discerns and determines doctrine first, and then communicates this to Peter, and only then does Peter make a determination regarding a doctrine? I mean, what comes first? The chicken or the egg?

http://www.cooltownstudios.com/images/chicken-egg.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

     I  don't believe the apostles were  thinking and acting  in the very first yeras in term of future centuries. They were waiting for a parusia which was supposed to be likely quite near.  Jesus appears to have left this possibility, of  a  near parusia,  open.  Clearly He  therefore did not  give direct instructions  about how to manage the Church in the next centuries and millennia.  The question of how to govern the Church after the apostles and before the parusia came up eventually. It was a new question. Needing as such a development.

We know those in authority within the Church were appointed by apostolic authority since the very first years , not only Matthias, but the deacons and so on. The hands of those with apostolic authority would pass it.
The picture of the very first post-apostolic generations appears to tell us the the way after the apostles and before the parusia was a Church were the bishops, selected by the apostles, had succeeded them in the evangelization and sanctification.

Sounds reasonable to me. I’m a bit of a history buff, so i’m sure i’ll enjoy learning more, should God give me the time to do so in the months to come.

Most protestant brothers tell us they know the Church ie the leadership of the apostolic and sub.apostolic Church got it wrong with what above, that they went somehow against Jesus’ message. How they know that is for me a riddle.

I believe the opinion comes not so much from ignorance of Church history after the 1st century AD (for many of them speak little of that)! The opinion comes from comparison of what some of the early Church Fathers taught and what their understanding of the biblical text is. If you want to help them, i’d recommend using Scripture to interpret Scripture (for the teachers to whom many of them listen are adept at that). For example (and as i’ve learned personally), if one of them argues about the meaning of this:
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:18)
Ask him the meaning of this:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)

Back to Matthew 16.

Peter’s comprehension and maturity were growing by living with the Lord, as for the other apostles. What we see in this chapter is a huge step forward,and the need for further growth. Jesus is not telling him
since you now say so, BTW, then i won’t give you the keys.

Agreed. It seems to me that all gifts are given by God’s grace, which if i understand correctly, is love that is undeserved.

Jesus accepts and appoints Peter as he is.
He is the one nearest to Him, answering Him, walking towards Him on the water. And experiencing moments of failure. Because he’s the one who experiences the human limits in going towards Jesus as much as possible, even walking on the water.
In that moment Peter is called Satan because he, out of love, is severely tempting the Lord. He and the others have still to grow by living alongside Jesus, and then by having everything reminded by the Holy Spirit. They are being trained.

Let’s consider that. When Jesus says, “Get behind me Satan,” do you think he was speaking to Peter or to Satan?

That has nothing to do with Him, and the apostolic college, being protected from teaching error once in charge of Jesus’ Church.

I hope this can help.

Bless you

Maybe you are correct. That is something i’m still trying to figure out.

PS Don,t worry about the ignored points. I will present them again, when and if they can be useful in your journey.

Yes, but feel free to come back to them if you think it will shed some light on the important leg of the trip we have just begun.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’ve been trying to get across to you that you are not approaching this with the seriousness that it deserves. You allow yourself to take all kinds of tangents and you aren’t respecting the time and energy of the people who are trying to help you. If you truly want to get off the island, act like it. Reflect on the truth prayerfully and reverently , because that is what is required in true conversion. This is not to say you can’t have a sense of humor, but it does have its place.

I find it curious that you find humor and a serious pursuit of the truth mutually exclusive. But i suppose that comes from playing the part of a lawyer. The discussion forum appears to be your courtroom, and you have your mind set on defending the truth and prosecuting the lies. The courtroom is no place to have fun!

Me, i’m not trying to defend the truth, i’m trying to gain it. I’m not playing the part of the prosecutor, i’m living the life of a philosopher. You see, the word philosopher literally means in Greek “one of Wisdom’s lovers” and like a young boy who is infatuated with the beautiful girl, my every thought is for Her. I wake with the thought of Her. Throughout the day i pass the hours in an unending daydream, for i cannot stop thinking about Her. Indeed, my thoughts of her continue till i lay my head down on my pillow at night. Even then, there’s no escaping Her, for in my dreams i pursue Her, still. It’s a wonder why, for she never satisfies me with Her embrace! She leads me on with a stare that kills and a smile that makes me weak. Sometimes, she pities me with a warm whisper in my ear or a soft kiss on my cheek. Yet even though i know she is too good for me, i continue the chase, like a lamb led to the slaughter (or a goat kicking at the goads, depending on who you ask). I have to admit i must look like an fool as i go, and there’s no wonder i’m the brunt of many jokes, and deserving of the criticism of those who say there’s something terribly wrong with me. For that is the effect She has on those who fall hopelessly in love with her. Socrates was one; and he poked fun at himself, saying that people said of him that:He fell into a well as he was looking up at the stars. For he was so eager to know what was going on in heaven, that he could not see what was before his feet. This is a jest that is applicable to philosophers.

(Theaetetus, 174)

And i’m embarrassed to say i do have this annoying habit of talking incessantly about Her, as Socrates also described himself (and me):… caring not whether his words are many or few, his only aim is to attain the truth.

(Theaetetus, 172)
So if i seem a bit dreamy and lacking focus, have patience with me, and even feel sorry for me. For my thoughts are so filled with embracing Wisdom that i’m sure i’ll disappoint you by leaving the straight and narrow road and go off on tangents. I’m sure i’ll give you cause to make fun of me as i make a complete fool of myself by stepping into a pitfall. But i’m sure i cannot keep from doing just that, for i cannot keep my eyes off of Her.Choose my instruction instead of silver,
knowledge rather than choice gold,
for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.

(Proverbs 8:10-11)

 

[utunumsint]

Perhaps there is no need, for God might be doing the talking for you, Ut–that is, if it is indeed Him who is whispering to me at the moment. Were you going to make the point that there was a sense of urgency in Peter’s decision? Were you going to say that, knowing Pentecost was coming soon, he wanted to be sure there were 12 men to bear witness on that day?

I was trying to contextualize the disputed point. Its embeded in a chapter that starts off by saying that Jesus instructed them on many occasions before the ascension, and that they were assembled as a community in prayerful and humble contemplation of the events that had just occured, and my final point is that I did not believe that Peter was acting on an uninspired hunch.

My other point was that we can’t know what was in Peter’s heart at the moment he came up with this idea. It simply gives the psalm verse as his motivation.

One final point: We know that Peter took the wrong path when Jesus said, “Get away from me Satan” because Jesus said “Get away from me Satan.” We also knew that Peter was going to fall away, along with all the other apostles, because Jesus prophecied to them that they would fall away. There are many other occasions where Jesus corrects the apostles as a body, nut just specifically to Peter alone.

Based on the above, in my opinion, if Peter were truly on the wrong track in Acts 1, Jesus, or an Angel, or some kind of manifestation from God would have guided them on the right path, or at least corrected their mistake later on.

In fact, this paradigm is what I see again and again later on in acts. It is the Holy Spirit, or an Angel, or a Vision that corrects or informs and Guides. The only reason the church can claim any kind of infallibility is in the belief that it is the Holy Spirit that guides her. This is especially clear in moments of major decisions (and in fact even minor ones).

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates4Jesus,
I am sorry that you feel that I was offended regarding the whoe book recommendation issue, I was not. Frustrated would be a better word. I just never had anyone take such a course on such a simple matter.

I see you’ve never met a philosopher!

I would now like to help you with this issue/concern you have about Peter.

I’d like to think you want to help, but some of what you have said has given me cause to doubt. Please tell me why you want to help me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I was trying to contextualize the disputed point. Its embeded in a chapter that starts off by saying that Jesus instructed them on many occasions before the ascension, and that they were assembled as a community in prayerful and humble contemplation of the events that had just occured, and my final point is that I did not believe that Peter was acting on an uninspired hunch.

My other point was that we can’t know what was in Peter’s heart at the moment he came up with this idea. It simply gives the psalm verse as his motivation.

One final point: We know that Peter took the wrong path when Jesus said, “Get away from me Satan” because Jesus said “Get away from me Satan.” We also knew that Peter was going to fall away, along with all the other apostles, because Jesus prophecied to them that they would fall away. There are many other occasions where Jesus corrects the apostles as a body, nut just specifically to Peter alone.

Based on the above, in my opinion, if Peter were truly on the wrong track in Acts 1, Jesus, or an Angel, or some kind of manifestation from God would have guided them on the right path, or at least corrected their mistake later on.

In fact, this paradigm is what I see again and again later on in acts. It is the Holy Spirit, or an Angel, or a Vision that corrects or informs and Guides. The only reason the church can claim any kind of infallibility is in the belief that it is the Holy Spirit that guides her. This is especially clear in moments of major decisions (and in fact even minor ones).

God bless,
Ut

Yes, i hear what you are saying, Ut. But i’m not hearing it in stereo. You see, i have this odd habit of listening with both ears and not accepting anything as true until both agree. At the moment, i hear your voice in one ear, but the voice of reason or the voice of the Spirit (i know not which) are not in sync in the other ear. So let’s keep talking about it, and perhaps you can help me tune in to the truth and remove the static.

In one ear i hear you tell me Peter was not acting on a hunch, but in the other ear i hear that he had to draw straws, so he was unsure who Jesus had chosen as the next Apostle.

In one ear i hear you say that we cannot know what was in his heart, in the other ear i hear that if we don’t know what he was thinking, then we cannot say he was certain what God’s will was before he made the decision to draw straws.

In one ear i hear you say that Peter was no better than the other Apostles, for they all fell away. In the other ear i hear that this only shows they were all equally susceptible to sin and deception (which is not comforting to consider).

In one ear i hear you say that Jesus corrected Peter and the others in the past when they were wrong. In the other ear i hear that His doing so in the past does not guarantee His doing so every time.

Perhaps it’s not a problem with the reception, but with the earwax of deception! If so, i hope you can help unstop my ear so i can hear more clearly.

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, i hear what you are saying, but i’m not hearing it in stereo. You see, i have this odd habit of listening with both ears and not accepting anything as true until both agree. At the moment, i hear your voice in one ear, but the voice of reason or the voice of the Spirit (i know not which) are not in sync in the other ear. So let’s keep talking about it, and perhaps you can help me tune in to the truth and remove the static.

Sounds good to me. (no pun intended)

In one ear i hear you tell me Peter was not acting on a hunch, but in the other ear i hear that he had to draw straws, so he was unsure who Jesus had chosen as the next Apostle.

I see that it is your personal opinion that this methods of leaving the results up to God is irrational. Do you have any scriptural proof of this? Or is it just a particular bias on your part? I mean, can you let scripture interpret scripture on this point?

In one ear i hear you say that we cannot know what was in his heart, in the other ear i hear that if we don’t know what he was thinking, then we cannot say he was certain what God’s will was before he made the decision to draw straws.

This is an interesting point. There have been plenty of evil clerics in history, including one particually evil apostle called Judas. Maybe God allows us to run the church as a human institution, but will raise up men after his own heart from within or without to reform this institution when things go wrong? In short, maybe there is a third option here. Maybe God wants us to run things according to our own prayerfully considered human lights. There can be a legitimate interplay between what God wants and what we think he wants.

You know how the saying goes “God draws straight with crocked line?”

In one ear i hear you say that Peter was no better than the other Apostles, for they all fell away. In the other ear i hear that this only shows they were all equally susceptible to sin and deception (which is not comforting to consider).

In one ear i hear you say that Jesus corrected Peter and the others in the past when they were wrong. In the other ear i hear that His doing so in the past does not guarantee His doing so every time.

Do you not think that Jesus cares enough for his church to do this? Or perhaps you don’t think he has enough power to do so?

I hope you can help me remove the wax of deception from my ear canal so i can hear more clearly.

OK. I draw the line at metaphors that have to do with bodily secretions.

God bless,
Ut

 

[paul_c]

I find it curious that you find humor and a serious pursuit of the truth mutually exclusive. But i suppose that comes from playing the part of a lawyer. The discussion forum appears to be your courtroom, and you have your mind set on defending the truth and prosecuting the lies. The courtroom is no place to have fun!

Me, i’m not trying to defend the truth, i’m trying to gain it. I’m not playing the part of the prosecutor, i’m living the life of a philosopher. You see, the word philosopher literally means in Greek “one of Wisdom’s lovers” and like a young boy who is infatuated with the beautiful girl, my every thought is for Her. I wake with the thought of Her. Throughout the day i pass the hours in an unending daydream, for i cannot stop thinking about Her. Indeed, my thoughts of her continue till i lay my head down on my pillow at night. Even then, there’s no escaping Her, for in my dreams i pursue Her, still. It’s a wonder why, for she never satisfies me with Her embrace! She leads me on with a stare that kills and a smile that makes me weak. Sometimes, she pities me with a warm whisper in my ear or a soft kiss on my cheek. Yet even though i know she is too good for me, i continue the chase, like a lamb led to the slaughter (or a goat kicking at the goads, depending on who you ask). I have to admit i must look like an fool as i go, and there’s no wonder i’m the brunt of many jokes, and deserving of the criticism of those who say there’s something terribly wrong with me. For that is the effect She has on those who fall hopelessly in love with her. Socrates was one; and he poked fun at himself, saying that people said of him that:He fell into a well as he was looking up at the stars. For he was so eager to know what was going on in heaven, that he could not see what was before his feet. This is a jest that is applicable to philosophers.

(Theaetetus, 174)

And i’m embarrassed to say i do have this annoying habit of talking incessantly about Her, as Socrates also described himself (and me):… caring not whether his words are many or few, his only aim is to attain the truth.

(Theaetetus, 172)
So if i seem a bit dreamy and lacking focus, have patience with me, and even feel sorry for me. For my thoughts are so filled with embracing Wisdom that i’m sure i’ll disappoint you by leaving the straight and narrow road and go off on tangents. I’m sure i’ll give you cause to make fun of me as i make a complete fool of myself by stepping into a pitfall. But i’m sure i cannot keep from doing just that, for i cannot keep my eyes off of Her.

Choose my instruction instead of silver,
knowledge rather than choice gold,
for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.

(Proverbs 8:10-11)

There’s a difference between humor and a lack of respect for your topic. That is my issue.

And I don’t think you fully understand the Nature of Apologetics. We are here to explain the faith to those that are truly interested and defend it against those that would accuse it of beign incorrect. So that’s what you should expect when you enter into an apologetics website.

With you, it is unclear whether we are explaining or defending, probably a little of both. In any case, we still see our role as trying to help others find the truth. At times, like these, it requires adaptation on our part because you are definitely approaching this much differently than most that we converse with. You meander in your thoughts endlessly and don’t seem to have much sense as to where you want to take this. That is why I suggest you aren’t a serious seeker of the truth. You seem more intent on conversing, enjoying the opportunity to bring out quotes and pictures to illustrate your points. So, I will now patiently wait for you to decide what you want to discuss.
​

​