Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
Your "easy" explanation is full of holes! Such as, I can change my name, can I not? If I do, then I am no longer called the same as what my parents named me, am I? There may be hundreds or thousands of people in the world of six+ billion that share the SAME name as I do, are they ALL me? Do they all share the same DNA? What you were attempting to prove - that "Catholic" was ALWAYS the name of the church Jesus established, whether or not anyone CALLED believers that - is nothing more than a presumption that makes a conclusion not in evidence. I am not my name, that is not what defines me, it is a way to identify only. "Christian" is not simply a name, it is not simply an identity, it is a designation of both who and what we are. We are identified as followers of Jesus Christ as opposed to Buddha or Muhammad. But, what truly makes us Christ's own is what we have believed in our hearts. He knows His own. He calls each one of us by name - and I doubt it is the one our parents gave us!
I'll try to make this as simple as possible - you seem to gravitate towards simple things. When Jesus told Peter and the others assembled there with him that upon Peter's profession of faith, Christ would build His church/assembly/body, He established that all those who would come to saving faith in Christ would become part of that called-out assembly. These followers of Jesus across the Middle East and the Roman empire became known by the appellation "Christian" because they followed the Christ. They were also referred to as "The Way" (Acts 24:14). However, NOWHERE in Scripture is there any mention of Christians being called "Catholic" and no writings of the Apostles ever make mention of it, either. The word "catholic" we know:
Sorry to break this to you, but your church doesn't own the copyright to the word, nor can they claim to be THE church Jesus established. As St. Peter - who you claim to be your first "Pope" - said, ALL believers are living stones being built up into the SPIRITUAL house of Christ, His body. The TRUE catholic church is the aggregate of all the Christian congregations which hold to the orthodox doctrines taught by the Apostles of Jesus Christ and preserved within the written word of God, the Holy Scriptures.
Anyone can claim to be the Christian church. How we know which ones follow the WAY from those who only say they do is what they teach and believe. There is a standard that was used almost from the start within Christianity which was explained in the “Vincentian Canon”. It is based on the Latin phrase: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (That Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all). It asserted that all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. It reinforced the longstanding theological method used by the early Christians to know truth from error.
I can demonstrate that EVERYTHING I believe concerning the Christian faith has Scriptural back up and was believed from the start of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, your church cannot lay claim to that standard, in fact, they don't believe they are obligated to hold to that standard anymore. Now, who is it that has a legitimate claim to be part of the TRUE church Jesus established? Those who claim the name but who hold doctrines NOT taught from the start and who cannot prove their beliefs by God's word? Or, will it be those who both claim to be Christ's as well as demonstrate the longevity and universality of their doctrines AND can prove them by God's word? Somehow, I don't think you will find it so easy to answer this time.
Is that you doing your "private interpretation" thing with proclamations of the RCC? They say not only did Mary not have the stain of original sin, she had NO sin at all, yet here you are "clarifying" that she had no serious sins. Do you mean "mortal" sins? Do you think Mary committed venial sins? For a church that supposedly can NEVER err, they sure do have trouble with deciding what is the current "truth" and catechizing their flock.
"Was the Holy Spirit upon Peter who cut off a soldier's ear?"
(from ealgeone to af_vet_1982, also ent to imardmd1)
My answer was "No" and I gave good and sufficient reasons to support that conclusion.
It is true that while following the Master Teacher, Peter was under His care, in that Jesus/God was not only Rabbi, but also Comforter. But so was Judas, who was given over to the Devil. During that period, The Holy Spirit, another Comforter of the same kind, was (as far as Peter or any of the other disciples were concerned) yet in The Heavens (Jn. 16:7). This pronouncement came on the same evening after supper.
Then they walked over to the Mount of Olives, where Jesus overcame the onslaught of the Devil who attacked him while Peter slept, without praying for his Master, while Jesus took up the cup of a mighty, blood-sweating battle.
Almost immediately after, Peter foolishly interfered with the temple guards who were trying to identify Jesus. Peter was not assigned to do this, but stepped in and performed an earotomy on the High Priest's servant Malchus. Peter, prompted by Satan, tried to get a knife fight going in which Satan might have gotten Jesus killed for "resisting arrest." This required Jesus to intervene and heal the wounded one supernaturally, so that He could continue on to the Cross, according to His plan.
And then, just a short time after, Peter six times very vociferously denied any association with Jesus the Galilean, even to the very face of the same Malchus whose ear had been healed from Peter's wound!
And then, after his Master had been crucified, but with the hope of an uprising against the Roman oppessors gone, Peter left the whole mess behind. Rather than following the resurrected Savior, he left for home, drawing away some of his pals, saying, "I go a-fishing" (Jn. 21:3). Was the Holy Ghost with/on him?
I say "No," and you can't prove otherwise, IMHO.
That was a sub argument from another that was subsequent to the main point in post 6445 where you asserted the Holy Spirit was always upon David from his anointing as King of Israel. You went further, much further than that, asserting Peter was not even saved.
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
And St. Paul chimes in...
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Benny Hinn says that also and his mentor and idol Kathryn Kuhlman as well. There’s an interesting story about him getting the “anointing” from the bones of Aimee Semple McPherson just by visiting her grave.
That has nothing to do with purgatory.
The Spirit of the LORD descended on Yeshua/Jesus when John baptized Him. They were co-located, so to speak.
Then they walked over to the Mount of Olives, where Jesus overcame the onslaught of the Devil who attacked him while Peter slept, without praying for his Master, while Jesus took up the cup of a mighty, blood-sweating battle.
Is this your own interpolation, eisigesis, or interpretation ? Where in the scriptures, or in which faith group, do they teach this ?
Almost immediately after, Peter foolishly interfered with the temple guards who were trying to identify Jesus. Peter was not assigned to do this, but stepped in and performed an earotomy on the High Priest's servant Malchus. Peter, prompted by Satan, tried to get a knife fight going in which Satan might have gotten Jesus killed for "resisting arrest." This required Jesus to intervene and heal the wounded one supernaturally, so that He could continue on to the Cross, according to His plan.
Eisigesis again; nothing was going to happen as you describe; it was going to happen as ordained. There is no Satan in the text. Perhaps you saw it in a movie.
And then, just a short time after, Peter six times very vociferously denied any association with Jesus the Galilean, even to the very face of the same Malchus whose ear had been healed from Peter's wound!
Three, not six times:
Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
-- Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty six, Protestant verse thirty four, as authorized by King James
Yes, Messiah miraculously healed his ear, Peter obeyed Messiah and put away the sword Messiah had authorized him to carry; no harm, no foul
And then, after his Master had been crucified, but with the hope of an uprising against the Roman oppessors gone, Peter left the whole mess behind. Rather than following the resurrected Savior, he left for home, drawing away some of his pals, saying, "I go a-fishing" (Jn. 21:3). Was the Holy Ghost with/on him?
Yes. Are you thinking of Thomas ?
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
-- John, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verses nineteen through thirty
I say "No," and you can't prove otherwise, IMHO.
If you say that’s all you need I suppose it will suffice for you. No matter it’s a totally erroneous interpretation of that passage.
But not on Peter. Nowhere dors the Scripture say that The Holy Ghost was resting on Peter in his days accompanying Jesus.In fact, Jesus told him to his face that night that he was not even converted, and that Satan was going to have at him for a while:
"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luk 22:31 AV).
But look, you've been told this before. How about keeping your mind on this fact? Peter was not yet fully placing his trust irreversibly on Jesus, and was not regenerated, not yet "born again," was not yet a true child of God in the Spirit. Please stop saying otherwise. Peter was a fitful, come-and-leave follower, but not an attentive one desiring to emulate Christ's teachings. In fact, he was demonstrating the same kind of leanings that got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven. I do know Jesus could quell that, but so far was only partially successful in translating Peter from a boorish fisherman to a reliable evangelizer and humble man of God. The time frame we're at here was just at the beginning of Peter's spiritual walk, not worthy of imitation.
Is this your own interpolation, eisigesis, or interpretation ? Where in the scriptures, or in which faith group, do they teach this ?
No, it is what I've learned from a proper exegetical approach to the Scriptures. About the "cup" of agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, apparently your "faith group" has not given you the clues necessary to interpret this event, which is explained in:
NOTES ON THE CUP ABOUT WHICH JESUS PRAYED IN GETHSEMANE
It is about the verse appearing in Hebrews 5:7-9:
"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; . . .
Excerpting this Note:
==========
What is the cup for which Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane? Herein is an attempt to clarify the apparent confusion which prompted the question. . . . Since the Lord Jesus used the word in figurative literal language, it is necessary to identify such uses throughout all of Scripture and then to focus on those that pertain to the question asked.
(My note here: Regarding this "cup" in Gethsemane, there are several explanations, only one of which can be shown to be valid, the seventh, Item G.)
A. Some propose that He prayed to be saved from dying. But that cannot be true . . .
B. Some propose that He prayed to be saved out of the permanent death of His human body.
C. Some think that Satan would kill him before He got to the cross, using Psalm 91:11,12 to substantiate it since Satan quoted it in the days of His testing in the desert [wilderness, AV] (Mt. 4:6).
D. Some advance the view that Jesus was praying for deliverance from dying in the Garden of Gethsemane . . . (but) to die as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, and to shed His precious blood, would be negated.
E. Then another view presented is that the cup' is the cup of infinite holy wrath against human sin, involving that forsaking (sic) concerning which our Lord cried with such anguish, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"
F. Others also link the agony of Gethsemane with Calvary enduring our hell so that we might be set free to enter Heaven . . .
G. An alternative view presented by Adolph Saphir in The Epistle to the Hebrews gives an exposition of Hebrews 5:7 and mentions that The anticipation of His agony on the cross overwhelms Him''-- The Son of Man (p. 269). Later he states The anguish that well-nigh overcame Him was conquered'' (p. 270). Herein lies a vital distinction between the cup'' referred to in Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and the cup of infinite holy wrath against human sin indicated when speaking to Peter before the multitude led by Judas Iscariot. The cup which My Father has given to Me, I should positively drink it, should I not?'' (Jn. 18:11). Additional distinctions can be noted after comparing the accounts in the synoptic Gospels quoted from The New Testament: A Precise Translation.
====
An alternative view presented by Adolph Saphir in The Epistle to the Hebrews gives an exposition of Hebrews 5:7 and mentions that The anticipation of His agony on the cross overwhelms Him''-- The Son of Man (p. 269). Later he states The anguish that well-nigh overcame Him was conquered'' (p. 270). Herein lies a vital distinction between the cup'' referred to in Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane and the cup of infinite holy wrath against human sin indicated when speaking to Peter before the multitude led by Judas Iscariot. The cup which My Father has given to Me, I should positively drink it, should I not?'' (Jn. 18:11). Additional distinctions can be noted after comparing the accounts in the synoptic Gospels quoted from The New Testament: A Precise Translation.
Eight Reasons for Such Conclusion
1. The Scripture indicated that Satan would return to test Him at an appointed time. Scripture does not record or specify such occasion. The only other recorded most likely event is this "cup.''
2. This cup''contrasted with the hour'' in both Matthew and Mark indicates they refer to the same thing.
3. Jesus' emphasis on one hour'' indicates the length of time until the cup passed.
4. The use of the first class conditional clause indicates the possibility that the request could be granted. Jesus knew that there was no possibility to avoid the cross.
5. The wording of the prayer in Koin‚ Greek, This cup is to go from alongside Me!'' indicates that the ordeal is in His presence and not before or up ahead of Him.
6. The only occasion other than Matthew 4:11 that (an) angel(s) ministered to or strengthened Him is recorded of Gethsemane in Luke 22:43.
7. The Savior's statements, "It is far distant away. The hour is gone,'' substantiate that the prayer was heard.
8. The thick blood clots of perspiration ceased indicating that the ordeal is ended.
===========
Look, from all the hints you've gotten from myself and others, you need to find someone who can disciple you through getting to know the God of the Bible, and His Only Begotten-in-the-flesh Son. And your "faith-group" does not seem to be helping. I'd love to see you enjoying the benefit of a good Biblical training. You're certainly floundering now --
While yet in the Garden, and before the other watching disciples and band of temple guards and mobsters, Satan certainly had Peter and was sifting him, as Jesus predicted. Where's your common sense on this, let alone spiritual insight?
No, not even close.
Try looking it up before trying to sound like you know what you're talking about so as to further not embarrass yourself.
I saw that up close and personal at every Catholic wedding, baptism, and first communion party.
It’s a judgment of our WORKS not our souls.
Six times, not three, demonstrating beyond the shadow of a doubt that you haven't scrutinized the Scriptures. To find the truth, you have to take a couple of things into account:
"And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept" (Mar_14:72 AV).
A correct exposition will show you that Peter denied thrice before the first crowing, and thrice more in the hour before the second crowing. To get it, you have to use the Koine to discern the gender of who was doing the accosting, and allow for the fact that the servant girl at Annas's door accused him on two different occasions, to both of which Peter responded "nay." That's two times right there.
Yes. Are you thinking of Thomas ?
No. I am saying exactly that Peter, instead of hanging close to the risen Lord, went back to Galilee and commenced his old occupation (which he had told Jesus that he had abandoned to follow Him), and drawing off his old pals instead of proclaiming with them the great news, "He is risen!" to the Galilean public.
Fishers of men? Pah! They weren't even good at fishing for fish.
And there, The resurrected Lord called him back to the shore, to his promised duties, to take up his cross like the other faithful disciples. He hit Simon, laughingly and perversely nicknamed "The Rock" with the challenge:
"Simon," (not "Peter") "agapao thou Me? (do you sovereignly prefer thou Me over yourself and above these others here?)"
And did Simon (no longer addressed as "Peter" or "Kephas") confess to Him, say the same thing as he had always before professed to follow Him to death? No. What he responded with was:
"Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I phileo thee" ("Well, yah, Lord, you know, I have a warm fraternal affection for you, eh?)
Pffft! this guy finally had to face up to his phony attitude, without even coming up with the truth, which was "Yeah, bro, I like you OK, but I'm going to look out for myself."
And when asked to "Feed My sheep, tend my lambs," did Simon say "Ok, Lord, I'll do it. I'll do what you asked, without question." Nah. Simon, who had wanted to be top dog all along, just turned to his old pal, old Buddy John, pointed to him and said, "Ok, so what are you going to do with this guy?" trying to shift the Lord's attention away from himself and onto John.
Boy! What a pal!
OK, AF, you can wake up, any time now --- you're doing the same thing in this thread that "Peter" was doing in this vignette. How about coming up with some excuses for your own versions of "truth"? Quit trying to make a prince out of Peter. Stick to the script, please!
And quit trying to find fault with me, when nobody believes in your phony stories and excuses for Simon Bar Jona, dubbed "Peter," before his moment of truth at Pentecost.
Messiah said three. Each gospel records three denials, albeit with some variations as is found elsewhere in the books. You say six, and then compound the error by making a false assertion about me.
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
-- Proverbs, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verses five through seven
OK, AF, you can wake up, any time now --- you're doing the same thing in this thread that "Peter" was doing in this vignette. How about coming up with some excuses for your own versions of "truth"? Quit trying to make a prince out of Peter. Stick to the script, please!
And quit trying to find fault with me, when nobody believes in your phony stories and excuses for Simon Bar Jona, dubbed "Peter," before his moment of truth at Pentecost.
There was once a prophet called Baalam, who had a Master of Divinity degree after a sort. This diatribe against the Apostle Peter sounds like something he might divine.
Jesus did not say it in this way, as three only. Pay attention to the language, and check it out for yourself, taking the Bible translation in one hand and the Greek text in the other, and follow it through. Put the happenings and the locations on a timeline as detectives do, and check the genders of the pronouns when you do it. And you will find out that your position is incorrect. I really was just trolling to get you to step in it, and you did.
You say six, and then compound the error by making a false assertion about me.
I made two assertions, both of them obvious and true. And you 're proving both of them true in this reply. It's OK, if I took them as insults I wouldn't be able to also laugh at your contortions with the Scriptures.
How much does purgatory cost???
If it's Christian and not Catholic, it's a denomination named Navigators...I have no problem with that....there are Lutherans, Methodists, Presbeterians, Anglicans, Mennonites, Baptists, Unitarians Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ...etc, etc, and Navigators....all are Protestant and all are wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.