Is 1 PETER 5:3 TRUE ?

[Dan Perez]

Peter wrote in 1 Peter 5:3 these words by the Holy Spirit .

Neither // MEDE is a conjunction

AS // HOS , is and adverb

God's was added

HERITAGE // KLEROS , in the Genitive Case , in the Plural

BUT // ALLA is a conjunction

BEING // GINOMAI , is in the Greek Present Tense . in the Middle or Passive Voice , a Participle , Nominative Case , in the Plural

ENSAMPLES // TYPOS , in the Nominative Case , is the subject , in the Plural

TO THE // HO is a Definite Article , that is pointing to the NEXT Greek word .

FLOCK // PIMNION , in the Genitive Case , in the Singular , in the Neuter , meaning Male and Female , in the Genitive Case .

How was Israel ruled , by the Law of Moses , with one High Priest and not by Peter as the 12 apostles will rule Israel as kings and priests .

dan p

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yeah, don't be bossy, be an example. That's an important point.

 

[Dan Perez]

Yeah, don't be bossy, be an example. That's an important point.

And why do you say I am bossy as I just present what the verse meant ?

dan o

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And why do you say I am bossy as I just present what the verse meant ?

dan o

I just looked up the verse as it was translated. The OP seemed to be talking about something else.

 

[Dan Perez]

I just looked up the verse as it was translated. The OP seemed to be talking about something else.

AND I use the KJV !! What is different ??

dan p

 

[Gregory Thompson]

AND I use the KJV !! What is different ??

dan p

1 Peter 5:3 says: Don't lord it over the people assigned to your care, but lead them by your own good example.

Did you mean a different verse?

 

[The Liturgist]

And why do you say I am bossy as I just present what the verse meant ?

dan o

It does not appear to me that @Gregory Thompson was accusing you of being bossy at all, rather, 1 Peter 5:3 is “3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

That is to say, clergy should not relish exercising authority over the laity but rather lead by example.

Was that the verse you were trying to comment on?

 

[Always in His Presence]

1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.​

​

The question is - Is the verse true.

Yes - why on earth would you think Holy Scripture would be a lie? Wasn't that Satan's reasoning in garden?

 

[The Liturgist]

1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.​

​

The question is - Is the verse true.

Yes - why on earth would you think Holy Scripture would be a lie? Wasn't that Satan's reasoning in garden?

Indeed so, insofar as the devil questioned the honesty of God, which is ironic considering the devil is a slanderer and a murderer.

 

[Dan Perez]

Indeed so, insofar as the devil questioned the honesty of God, which is ironic considering the devil is a slanderer and a murderer.

And my post was to shown the Peter was not a the HEAD of any ASSEMBLY and no one took his place as a POPE

OR that anyone CAN be a SUCCESSOR or be OCCUPY the so-called CHAIR that Peter occupied as no verse to verify .

dan p

 

[Always in His Presence]

Peter wrote in 1 Peter 5:3 these words by the Holy Spirit .

Neither // MEDE is a conjunction

AS // HOS , is and adverb

God's was added

HERITAGE // KLEROS , in the Genitive Case , in the Plural

BUT // ALLA is a conjunction

BEING // GINOMAI , is in the Greek Present Tense . in the Middle or Passive Voice , a Participle , Nominative Case , in the Plural

ENSAMPLES // TYPOS , in the Nominative Case , is the subject , in the Plural

TO THE // HO is a Definite Article , that is pointing to the NEXT Greek word .

FLOCK // PIMNION , in the Genitive Case , in the Singular , in the Neuter , meaning Male and Female , in the Genitive Case .

How was Israel ruled , by the Law of Moses , with one High Priest and not by Peter as the 12 apostles will rule Israel as kings and priests .

dan p

And my post was to shown the Peter was not a the HEAD of any ASSEMBLY and no one took his place as a POPE

OR that anyone CAN be a SUCCESSOR or be OCCUPY the so-called CHAIR that Peter occupied as no verse to verify .

dan p

How on earth were we supposed to know that is the subject of your thread? Your op is unintelligible to the subject. Why not just state your supposition and very plainly state the supporting verse.

You might get more interaction and participation if you would just peak plainly. It's hard to give a response when the subject is lost in broken sentences and vague references.

 

[Always in His Presence]

And... there is zero connection to the title of the OP. Just saying -

 

[concretecamper]

It's all GREEK to me.

 

[Dan Perez]

It's all GREEK to me.

And you make giggle as What I wrote is taken from the Greek Text and hope no one is calling me CAPTIOUS !!

dan p

 

[concretecamper]

And you make giggle as What I wrote is taken from the Greek Text and hope no one is calling me CAPTIOUS !!

dan p

I can see you have as much trouble with English as you do with Greek. I would look to the historical teachings of His Church when it comes to interpretation of scripture rather than fumbling with a Greek lexicon.

 

[Always in His Presence]

And you make giggle as What I wrote is taken from the Greek Text and hope no one is calling me CAPTIOUS !!

dan p

It would be hard to call something unintelligible captious.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It does not appear to me that @Gregory Thompson was accusing you of being bossy at all, rather, 1 Peter 5:3 is “3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

That is to say, clergy should not relish exercising authority over the laity but rather lead by example.

Was that the verse you were trying to comment on?

Yes.

 

[Dan Perez]

It does not appear to me that @Gregory Thompson was accusing you of being bossy at all, rather, 1 Peter 5:3 is “3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

That is to say, clergy should not relish exercising authority over the laity but rather lead by example.

Was that the verse you were trying to comment on?

Yes it was , thank you !! And I use the Greek from the KJV and lso have 47 other Greek texts and can check them , but prefer the KJV .

dan p

 

[ViaCrucis]

And my post was to shown the Peter was not a the HEAD of any ASSEMBLY and no one took his place as a POPE

OR that anyone CAN be a SUCCESSOR or be OCCUPY the so-called CHAIR that Peter occupied as no verse to verify .

dan p

There are different issues involved here:

1) The meaning of 1 Peter 5:3
2) Whether episcopal succession is apostolic in origin
3) The Papacy more specifically

1 Peter 5:3 has nothing to say about apostolic and episcopal succession one way or the other. It doesn't have anything to say about the Papacy either. 1 Peter 5:3 would be relevant in talking about historic pastoral abuses.

I reject the institution of the Papacy, and I believe 1 Peter 5:3 would offer good substance in criticism for the ways in which pastoral abuses have existed within the Papacy. But it doesn't address the Papacy itself.

There are infinitely better arguments against the institution of the Papacy, both biblical and historical.

But that still wouldn't affect the matter of apostolic/episcopal succession.

You'll need to find better biblical prooftexts to make the case you want to make.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dan Perez]

There are different issues involved here:

1) The meaning of 1 Peter 5:3
2) Whether episcopal succession is apostolic in origin
3) The Papacy more specifically

1 Peter 5:3 has nothing to say about apostolic and episcopal succession one way or the other. It doesn't have anything to say about the Papacy either. 1 Peter 5:3 would be relevant in talking about historic pastoral abuses.

I reject the institution of the Papacy, and I believe 1 Peter 5:3 would offer good substance in criticism for the ways in which pastoral abuses have existed within the Papacy. But it doesn't address the Papacy itself.

There are infinitely better arguments against the institution of the Papacy, both biblical and historical.

But that still wouldn't affect the matter of apostolic/episcopal succession.

You'll need to find better biblical prooftexts to make the case you want to make.

-CryptoLutheran

One is that Peter was the apostle to the CIRCUMCISION in Gal 2: 7 and that means that he was keeping the OLD COVENANT ,

and there is verse that says Peter was a POPE , or had a CHAIR and that a Priest can forgive SINS and there is NO Greek

word for PURGATORY .

dan p