Gather 'Round Peter

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 2:1-3 . . Lay aside all envy

Webster's defines envy as painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another, coupled with a desire to possess the same advantage

There are musicians that I greatly admire for their talent and their creativity. But I don't hate them for it; no, I truly love their work, i.e. I'm a fan rather than a rival. For example; famed sessions musician Carol Kaye can lay down smooth jazz lines with an electric bass using nothing more than a flat guitar pick. I wish I could do what Carol does, and I would sincerely like for her to continue playing and teaching forever.

But when admiration is mixed with pain and resentment, it can become ugly and extremely dangerous.

For example, it was envy that motivated Cain to murder his kid brother, and it was envy that motivated Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery, and it was envy that motivated Jesus' opponents to have him arrested and put to death.

People prone to envy share a very common denominator: they simply must be either equal to, or better than, others. It's that simple. And if they cannot be equal to, or better than others, then nothing would make them happier than to see those others failed, maimed, silenced, disfigured, dishonored, disgraced, humiliated, handicapped for life and/or deceased.
_

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 2:1-3 . . Lay aside all evil speaking

The Greek word for "evil speaking" is katalalia (kat-al-al-ee'-ah) which basically means defamation; defined by Webster's as the act of communicating false statements about a person that injures their reputation.

Talking about someone behind their back counts as defamation only when the statements are untrue; especially if the statements are deliberately untrue and calculated to assassinate someone's character and/or question their good name.

● 1Pet 2:2 . . As newborn infants, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby."

When Christians neglect to study Peter's epistles to learn what is, and what is not, appropriate behavior for Christ's followers, they are certain to end up stunting their spiritual growth; and quite naturally retain and practice all five of the ugly behaviors listed above; viz: malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and evil speaking.
_

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 2:21-24 . . Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps . . who, when he was reviled, did not revile in return

There's a couple of Greek words translated "revile" in that passage. The first is loidoreo (loy-dor-eh'-o) which means to reproach, i.e. vilify; in other words: insult; defined by Webster's as to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt.

The second word is antiloidoreo (an-tee-loy-dor-eh'-o) which means to rail in reply; i.e. toxic rejoinders.

What we're looking at is the apostle Peter testifying to Christ's practicing what he preached about turning the other cheek; which some apparently seem to honestly believe has gone out of vogue.
_

 

[concretecamper]

Seems like @WebersHome is having nice conversation with him/her self.

 

[tz620q]

Seems like @WebersHome is having nice conversation with him/her self.

Perhaps, but obviously you and I have been following his posts, so? I was just wondering where he was going with all of this. It seems that he is saying that Peter was human and fallible and that the Catholic church should study Peter and try to do what his epistles say to do. I take that as good advice and will review them in response to these posts.

 

[WebersHome]

.

It seems that he is saying that Peter was human and fallible and that the Catholic church should study Peter and try to do what his epistles say to do.

According to posts No.1, No.3, and No.17, my emphasis has been upon the apostle Peter's authority rather than his humanity.
_

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 1:22b . . See that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently

The Greek word translated "love" in that passage is agapao (ag-ap-ah'-o) which is actually a very easy love to practice because it doesn't consist of sentiments like affection and fondness; which are components of the other love in the New Testament translated from the Greek word phileo (fil-eh'-o).

Agapao is impersonal; commonly expressed in things like charity, kindness, sympathy, lenience, and tolerance; viz: agapao isn't expressed by liking people; rather, it's expressed by being nice to people, i.e. civil; defined by Webster's as adequate in courtesy and politeness: mannerly.

Phileo, on the other hand, is personal and not as common as agapao because phileo is felt rather than expressed; viz: phileo refers to emotional attachments.

An excellent contrast between the two loves is seen by comparing John 3:16 and John 16:27.

In the first; God is shown sympathetic.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

In the latter, God is shown affectionate.

"The Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."

Obtaining God's sympathy is very easy because that's on Him; whereas winning His affections is not so easy because that's on us.

● John 15:10 . . If you obey my commands, you will abide in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and abide in His love.

Anyway; 1Pet 1:22b only requires Christians to be civil, which I'm convinced is within every Christian's capabilities; even for Christians whose sensitivities are those of a catcher's mitt or a wooden nickel.

A pure fervent heart refers to taking Peter's requirement seriously enough to make a conscientious effort to comply with it; viz: every Christian, even the bi-polar ones, really ought to be doing their level best to be good people not just some of the time, nor even most of the time; but all the time-- at the very least among themselves and with each other.
_

 

[concretecamper]

Perhaps, but obviously you and I have been following his posts, so?

I actually havent read a whole post, I was curious about the topic and noticed it was a 1 sided conversation.

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 2:17a . . Honor all men.

The Greek word translated "honor" is timao (tim-ah'-o) which basically means to prize, i.e. fix a valuation upon and/or to revere

The first place that timao shows up in the New Testament is Matt 15:4 which reads:

"God said: Honor your father and mother."

Right after the Flood, God outlawed murder; and the reason given for the ban was not because murder is necessarily wrong, but because people are made in the likeness of God. (Gen 9:5-6)

James criticizes the use of language that expresses a wish that someone be sent to hell. The reason given is not because that sort of language is necessarily wrong, but because people were made in the likeness of God. (Jas 3:8-9)

In other words; murder and cursing dishonors the likeness of God, and by extension dishonors God too.

From that I gather that failure to treat everyone with dignity-- regardless of age, race, or gender --not only dishonors men but by extension also dishonors God in whose likeness everyone was made.

FAQ: Does that mean even serial killers, mass murderers, and monsters like Osama Bin Laden, Robert Mugabe, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and crooks like Al Capone and Bernie Madoff have to be treated humanely and with dignity the same as everyone else?

A: Yes, absolutely because the honor that Peter is talking about doesn't have to be earned, merited or otherwise deserved.

Take for example Lev 19:32 which reads like this:

"Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am The Lord"

The honor required for senior citizens doesn't have to be earned, merited or otherwise deserved. The only requirement is age; and failure to dignify senior citizens is all the same as failure to dignify God.

NOTE: You can tell a lot about people by the way they treat senior citizens. Now that I myself am old and gray-haired, I'm sensitive to things like that.
_

 

[tz620q]

.


According to posts No.1, No.3, and No.17, my emphasis has been upon the apostle Peter's authority rather than his humanity.
_

There used to be a fellow on here that resolved to only post scripture with no commentary. Oddly, people got to know him well enough to know what his thoughts were on a subject just from what he quoted. Now you seem to be using Peter's epistles to show a humble Peter that was exhorting others to behave in a Christian manner. Do you feel that that means that Peter had no authority in the early church? I would rather have humble leaders than the bunch we have in Washington right now.

 

[Major1]

Seems like @WebersHome is having nice conversation with him/her self.

Seems to me you are reading his comments......hence your post.

 

[Major1]

There used to be a fellow on here that resolved to only post scripture with no commentary. Oddly, people got to know him well enough to know what his thoughts were on a subject just from what he quoted. Now you seem to be using Peter's epistles to show a humble Peter that was exhorting others to behave in a Christian manner. Do you feel that that means that Peter had no authority in the early church? I would rather have humble leaders than the bunch we have in Washington right now.

I am sure you will not agree with me on this, but I do not seem to be able to confirm that there is any evidence that the office of Pope even existed in the early church, obviously neither Peter nor anyone else could hold the office.

The RCC tells us that …………..
"The Catholic Church believes that St. Peter was the chief Apostle, exercising by Christ's appointment the supreme power of governing His church. The Vatican Council says: 'If anyone says that Christ the Lord did not constitute the Blessed Peter prince of all the Apostles and head of the whole church militant ... let him be anathema'" (Question Box, p. 145).

But....Acts 2:1-4 and Ephesians 3:3-5 say that ………...
"All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit".

Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus.

The gospel was the "keys" or authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter the church. Peter was the first to preach to Jews and to Gentiles, but all apostles had authority to preach the gospel.

I wonder if you would like to address these HISTORIAL FACTS:

No passage anywhere says the other apostles submitted to Peter's authority.

Peter was a married man, but modern Popes are not permitted to marry.

Peter refused to allow men to bow to honor him religiously, but modern Popes accept and encourage this.

Peter was never addressed by titles of exaltation such as are used to honor modern Popes.

There Is No Valid Scriptural Proof that Peter Ever Acted as Pope.

 

[tz620q]

I am sure you will not agree with me on this, but I do not seem to be able to confirm that there is any evidence that the office of Pope even existed in the early church, obviously neither Peter nor anyone else could hold the office.

Major1,
I will give a little when I get a little. You jumped into a conversation between WebersHome and I; but did not answer the question that I asked him, "Do you feel that that means that Peter had no authority in the early church?" What authority do you see Peter having in the early church? If you come back with another rant against the papacy, then I will wait on WebersHome's response.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Do you feel that that means that Peter had no authority in the early church?" What authority do you see Peter having in the early church?

Like all the emissaries ,

called and chosen by Yahuweh,

Peter was a vessel to serve the assemblies of Ekklesia self-lessly, as directed by Yahuweh thru Yahushua Hamashiach (by God the Father through His Son Jesus The Messiah).
Likewise, in line with all Scripture, those who remained faithful and seeking Yahuweh's Kingdom,
accepted the message from Yahuweh through the emissary Peter (and the other emissaries),
AS LONG AS it passed the TEST (of Scripture, to be True).

Whenever , as happened, Peter strayed/ sinned/ mis-behaved, another emissary or someone in the assembly of Ekklesia would (or should) call him out on it, to bring about repentance and true obedience again.

 

[WebersHome]

.

you seem to be using Peter's epistles to show a humble Peter that was exhorting others to behave in a Christian manner.

According to posts No.1, No.3, No.17. and No.26, my emphasis has been upon the apostle Peter's authority rather than his humanity.

It is curious to me that so many Catholics that I encounter online have far more interest in the apostle Peter's biography than his epistles.

When I say gather 'round Peter, I'm inviting all Christians, regardless of their denominational affiliation-- but most especially Catholics; lapsed or otherwise --to come and sit at Peter's feet and listen to his instructions, viz: get their eyes off the apostle, and get their ears attuned to what he has to say; especially as regards piety, i.e. manners, behavior, and conduct.

If you prefer to talk about Peter instead of his doctrine, you'll have to find someone else to do so with you because I am NOT going down that road; not on this thread.
_

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 2:17c . . fear God, honor the king.

Webster's defines kings as 1) monarchs, 2) paramount chiefs and/or 3) one that holds a preeminent position; e.g. monarchs, sovereigns, presidents, prime ministers, czars, chairmen, etc.

There is currently throughout America a wave of hate, hysteria, and disrespect for a U.S. President the intensity of which is unlike anything I've ever seen in my 75 years on this planet. I should hope that none of Christ's followers get caught up in it.

Christians don't have to particularly like Mr. Trump as a person, but we do have to render him the dignity and the respect that a president's position has been given by God. Failure to do so not only fails to comply with the apostle Peter's instructions, but also fails to fear God.

● Prov 24:21 . . My son, fear The Lord and the king; have nothing to do with those who hate them.
_

 

[Major1]

Major1,
I will give a little when I get a little. You jumped into a conversation between WebersHome and I; but did not answer the question that I asked him, "Do you feel that that means that Peter had no authority in the early church?" What authority do you see Peter having in the early church? If you come back with another rant against the papacy, then I will wait on WebersHome's response.

Maybe I am wrong on this......but I was under the impression that this was an OPEN forum.

Dosen't that mean that anyone can "jump in" as they see something that they want to say?

Then, does my "rant" mean that you do not have any answers to what I posted so you would rather jump at me instead of what was posted?????

 

[Major1]

.
● 1Pet 2:17c . . fear God, honor the king.

Webster's defines kings as 1) monarchs, 2) paramount chiefs and/or 3) one that holds a preeminent position; e.g. monarchs, sovereigns, presidents, prime ministers, czars, chairmen, etc.

There is currently throughout America a wave of hate, hysteria, and disrespect for a U.S. President the intensity of which is unlike anything I've ever seen in my 75 years on this planet. I should hope that none of Christ's followers get caught up in it.

Christians don't have to particularly like Mr. Trump as a person, but we do have to render him the dignity and the respect that a president's position has been given by God. Failure to do so not only fails to comply with the apostle Peter's instructions, but also fails to fear God.

● Prov 24:21 . . My son, fear The Lord and the king; have nothing to do with those who hate them.
_

Agreed! Both with the anger we see and your age. Pretty soon you will catch me in that.

From where I sit, all of this anger stems from the simple fact that Mrs. Clinton did not win.

She was expected to win, got the most votes but God had another idea.

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 2:17b . . love the brotherhood

The Greek word translated "brotherhood" is adelphotes (ad-el-fot'-ace) which appears in only two places in the entire New Testament; both are in the apostle Peter's epistles: one here and the other in 1Pet 5:9.

It's a curious word because it essentially refers to a fraternity; defined by Webster's as a group of people associated or formally organized for a common purpose, interest, or pleasure; i.e. persons of the same class, profession, character, or tastes: for example leagues, guilds, societies, and trade unions.

"We're all in this together" pretty much sums up adelphotes; for example 1Pet 5:8-9 which reads:

"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings."

But now; exactly who is in this frat about which Peter speaks? Well, the apostle identifies them by his greeting in 1Pet 1:1-2 which reads:

"To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood"

Just to be on the safe side, assume that Peter's greeting applies to anyone and everyone calling themselves a Christian regardless of their denominational affiliation. This can be done very easily just by following his instructions to honor all men. (post No.29)

One thing to our advantage is that the Greek word for "love" in 1Pet 2:17 is impersonal, viz: it doesn't require affection, it only requires that we be humane, e.g. civil, courteous, friendly, peaceable, hospitable, sympathetic, tolerant, lenient, forgiving, charitable, and generous. In other words; we don't actually have to like our fellow Christians, we only have to allow them the dignity that the image and likeness of God deserves.
_

 

[WebersHome]

.
● 1Pet 3:3-5 . . Wives, let not your adornment be merely external-- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses --but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

Some of the more ascetic Christians have attempted to use that passage to insist it's wrong for women to wear cosmetics. No, the apostle Peter is only reflecting an old Portuguese proverb that goes something like this: A beleza não ajusta a tabela. (Beauty doesn't set the table) which simply means a pretty girl might be amazing in yoga pants but quite ineffective as a homemaker.

Hollywood movies often portray "spirited" women as somehow desirable. No, they aren't desirable; they're feral, they demean men and make them miserable. Hollywood also commonly portrays women slapping men in the face and getting away with it. That is NOT what Peter means by a "gentle and quiet spirit" and besides, slapping is the criminal act of assault and battery-- not what I would call setting a good example for growing girls.

● Matt 5:3 . . Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

● Matt 5:9 . . Blessed are the peaceable: for they shall be known as God's kin.

An assertive, confrontational woman is neither peaceable nor poor in spirit; no, in point of fact she's quite militant, obnoxious, chafing, critical, temperamental, impudent, and arrogant. Those might be desirable characteristics for strong females in television and movie roles but clearly not desirable in a Christian wife.

When a Christian wife gets all dressed up to her nines, but yet lacks a "gentle and quiet spirit" then her ensemble is incomplete. In point of fact, an assertive, confrontational wife is, in reality, nothing less than a barnyard animal.

● Prov 11:22 . . As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.

So then, by all means Christian women should continue to shop at SEPHORA, but at the same time make an effort to be agreeable too.
_