Peter Is Not The Rock!

[beamishboy]

Paul is here referring to his initial teaching, which was by word of mouth, and his subsequent letters. He is admonishing the believers to not stray from those teachings. He also warns that a falling away would come, and urges that the church stay faithful to what they were originally taught.

Wow, I didn't know this. Paul actually warning that a falling away would come. I live in a different era and what I know is a falling away did come. Just a couple of hundred years or so after Paul. And the effects of that falling away are horrendous. Good post!

 

[archierieus]

Simon was the only Apostle to be given a name from Jesus.

He also gave names to James and John--'Boanerges,' meaning 'sons of thunder' (the boys had BAD tempers!), for example. It appears that Jesus gave nicknames to several of the disciples which illustrated their shortcomings! But in spite of those shortcomings, He was able to work with them and to refine and purify them to be fit witnesses for Him and teachers of the gospel.

Dave

 

[Rick Otto]

...whether by word of mouth or by letter.

It is problematic to assume that the teachings by mouth would be different than those by letter.

 

[Rick Otto]

...And every time they started discussing who was greatest among them, Jesus shamed them.

 

[beamishboy]

He also gave names to James and John--'Boanerges,' meaning 'sons of thunder' (the boys had BAD tempers!), for example. It appears that Jesus gave nicknames to several of the disciples which illustrated their shortcomings! But in spite of those shortcomings, He was able to work with them and to refine and purify them to be fit witnesses for Him and teachers of the gospel.

Dave

They usually know the Bible much less than us. That's universally true. But the beamishboy might not know that much cos the beamishboy is still growing. An adolescent Protestant. Hehe.

 

[archierieus]

Dear archierieus,

Thank you for your engagement here, and for your interesting comments.

As you know, Revelation was one of the books whose Apostolicity was long doubted, and in the Est it was not accepted even after the fourth century in some quarters.

Indeed. And if my memory serves me correctly, several others also were the subject of lively debate.

My earlier point was that because it was a free-standing text, the comments at the end can, logically, only refer to itself and not the rest of a book of which it was not then part.

Yes, I understood what you were saying. I would simply respond that, assuming its inspiration, the book itself does in fact not stand alone (although to human appearance it does), because it is part and parcel of the larger 'Book' or compilation which we recognize as 'God-breathed' (theopneustos). To God, the true Author, it was the final installment of that larger Book, hence the inspired words in ch. 22 about not adding to the words of 'this Book.' As for its order in the Bible, I believe that God is above time, that He inhabits the past, the present and the future simultaneously ("Who was, and is, and is to come, the Almighty") Therefore, God knew in advance and had His master plan for His Book, working sometimes through and sometimes around and in spite of man's activities!

Indeed, if one takes the Codex Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, which contain books the Church decided to exclude, and one takes your reading of Revelation, it would follow that the excluded books should not have been excluded.

Ahh, yes, the critical text. Indeed, Nestle-Aland relies very heavily on those two codices. Yet, IMO God was still on His throne throughout the whole process, guiding and intervening where necessary. If we say that we can see the hand of God in secular history (which I at least believe) then I should think that God also would be at work when it comes to the preservation of His Word--nay, in spite of the several Church councils!

it seems unlikely God would leave His people in the dark for so long.

Assuming, my dear fellow, that the people professing His name were at all times pertinent in tune with, listening, open to His leading. Perhaps other things were going on which interfered or obscured His leading. I submit that simply a a possibility here, not having a high degree of confidence in human nature (starting with myself.)

but we agree on this wider, and I think more important, point.

HMHV, HMHV!

It would be nice to think this would be so. But evidence that it is creating a common understanding and more unity seems, alas, a trifle scarce. It would be good if this were to happen.

To my observation, this does appear to happen--that is, within the circle of NT Greek scholarship, for example. A student floats an idea, it is analyzed and dissected, sometimes ripped apart, sometimes concurred in. As many ideas, options, judgment calls are presented, a fuller and clearer picture of the original text can develop, and the community benefit from it.

But, for those Churches which have been there from the beginning, there is also the developed understanding of the ages; we are not necessarily wiser than our ancestors; so we give them a say too - after all, they are part of that communion of saints too.

Assuming--assuming, I say, that we are on the same page. I, too, have enjoyed the study of Church history, although I need to know much more. Yet I have seen enough to recognize that there were conflicting agendas, different priorities, strains of thought.

Regards as always,

arxierieus (Dave)

 

[beamishboy]

It is problematic to assume that the teachings by mouth would be different than those by letter.

Hear ye! Hear ye!

That's something all RCs and Orthodox should take note of. It doesn't make sense that the oral teachings of the apostles would differ from the written. It's a bit like my vicar. He teaches orally but from the Bible. It cannot be that his oral teaching differs from the Bible. If it does, he ain't Protestant.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

They usually know the Bible much less than us. That's universally true. But the beamishboy might not know that much cos the beamishboy is still growing. An adolescent Protestant. Hehe.

I remember the first time I read thru Revelation and just shaking my head and saying "this looks like something Ezekiel would write!"
But it follows Ezekiel just nicely thank ya very much

Ezekiel 39:17 " And thou son of adam, thus He says my Lord YHWH, say thou! to bird of every wing, and to all of beast of the field: 'be assembled ye! and come ye! together ye from round about on sacrifice of Me which I sacrificing for ye, a sacrifice great on Mountains of Israel, and ye eat flesh and ye drink blood. 18 Flesh of mighty-ones ye shall eat, and blood of princes of the Land ye shall drink

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered/sun-agesqe <4863> (5744)! into the Supper/deipnon <1173> of the Great God. 18 That Ye may be eating fleshes of kings......[Zeph 1:17/Ezekiel 39:19]

 

[archierieus]

...And every time they started discussing who was greatest among them, Jesus shamed them.

You have hit the nail on the head IMO and have driven it straight and true. What you mentioned is PRECISELY why I am astounded that people could seriously believe that Jesus singled out Peter for special status. That is EXACTLY what he was AVOIDING doing!!! All they way up to the Upper Room (the inspiration for the name of the community Bible fellowship I lead out in), the twelve were quarreling about who would have the highest position in the coming kingdom! James and John had just requested, through their mother, the two highest places, and their comrades were indignant! Of course, the text does not support the notion that Jesus either gave Peter a new name (He did not, he used the same moniker He had given Peter on day one) nor that Peter was the 'petra' as Jesus did NOT call Peter 'petra' OR build His church on Peter! Nor does the language, the grammar support the idea that the 'keys' specified in Mt. 16 were given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter. As well, the rest of the apostles were given the same powers in ch. 18. The word 'keys' DOES NOT need to be repeated. What is important is the description of the powers bestowed. It is identical to that in ch. 16. And, on top of all that, as you pointed out, Jesus' STRENUOUS efforts to take the attention OFF of position or seeking the highest place and urging them all instead to be servants and take the lowest place.

At any rate, so much for that. Thanks, Rick, for that incisive post.

Dave

 

[lionroar0]

Hmmmmm. Interesting. Before going any farther, let's start with the verse I quoted, Isa. 8:20. What does that say to you? What does it mean to you practically?

It's not about me and what I belief it states.

What does that verse say? How is it to be understood and the facts behind that understanding.

If you are referring to Laodicea??? for example, whether the Church at that juncture were to have said it was the Word of God, or not, it would still be the Word of God.

Evidence please. Now you have to show how the rest of the christian world would have accepted the Bible with out the Church.

That information may also be derived from the Bible itself, tradition be what it may or say what it may. Although, the identity of the author is not material to the inspiration of the book.

Facts please. First it was stated that they were eyewitness accounts. Now the authorship is not important, because they are inspired.

Seems like a contradiction. A belief versus facts.

Please show facts that the Bible is inspired.

Not the Bible doctrine of the trinity. The Bible very clearly teaches the Trinity. I should point out that the RC doctrine is different in some respects than what the Bible teaches.

Is till a bit premature, since no facts that the Bible is inspired has been posted but lets run with it any ways.

Please show where the Bible teaches about the Trinity.

That is found, and stated, very, very plainly in Scripture, without any reference to any church's tradition.

See above.

Very well. If this is a concept you are not familiar with, then I should be glad to make an effort to assemble relevant Bible passages for your benefit. That will, however, take a bit of time, and it is rather late at the moment.

Oh, it's not about me and what I know and profess.

Paul is here referring to his initial teaching, which was by word of mouth, and his subsequent letters. He is admonishing the believers to not stray from those teachings. He also warns that a falling away would come, and urges that the church stay faithful to what they were originally taught.

I don't see where St. Paul states anything about his initials teachings. He is very explicit that they have been taught the gospel by both word of mouth and epistles.

Here is a wider look.

14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Past tense. The Gospel has already been taught.

As I understand it, you are asking for Biblical passages that state or support the concept of the all-sufficiency of Scripture for the knowledge essential to salvation. I am assuming here that you are not familiar with those passages, for if you were, then presumably you would not be asking for them. And I have compiled a study on this point. I will have to dig it out and see what I can do to answer your question. May take a bit of time.

Dave

So the Bible is documentation of this belief? Although the inspiration of the Bible has yet to be determined with facts?

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Greetings. Can you show how it looks in the original Latin or Greek [preferably Greek LOL]? Thanks.

I'll have to check at home but off the top of my head his letters were both in Greek and Syriac. If I remember right.

I'll have to get to it tommorow cause I'm at work now.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

...And every time they started discussing who was greatest among them, Jesus shamed them.

Yep.


Peace

 

[Photini]

Hear ye! Hear ye!

That's something all RCs and Orthodox should take note of. It doesn't make sense that the oral teachings of the apostles would differ from the written. It's a bit like my vicar. He teaches orally but from the Bible. It cannot be that his oral teaching differs from the Bible. If it does, he ain't Protestant.

Indeed it should be something that all who undertake to teach the Gospel should take note of. But when an interpretation of Scripture arises, what do you measure it against to verify it has been interpreted rightly? When the Ethiopian eunich was reading Isaiah from Scripture and was asked by Philip if he knew what he was reading, he responded with something to the effect of "How can I know, unless someone guides me?"

 

[lionroar0]

It is problematic to assume that the teachings by mouth would be different than those by letter.

What was passed on by epistles and by word of wouth is the same Gospel.

St. Paul states this very clearly.

14He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


Peace

 

[lionroar0]

You have hit the nail on the head IMO and have driven it straight and true. What you mentioned is PRECISELY why I am astounded that people could seriously believe that Jesus singled out Peter for special status. That is EXACTLY what he was AVOIDING doing!!! All they way up to the Upper Room (the inspiration for the name of the community Bible fellowship I lead out in), the twelve were quarreling about who would have the highest position in the coming kingdom! James and John had just requested, through their mother, the two highest places, and their comrades were indignant! Of course, the text does not support the notion that Jesus either gave Peter a new name (He did not, he used the same moniker He had given Peter on day one) nor that Peter was the 'petra' as Jesus did NOT call Peter 'petra' OR build His church on Peter! Nor does the language, the grammar support the idea that the 'keys' specified in Mt. 16 were given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter. As well, the rest of the apostles were given the same powers in ch. 18. The word 'keys' DOES NOT need to be repeated. What is important is the description of the powers bestowed. It is identical to that in ch. 16. And, on top of all that, as you pointed out, Jesus' STRENUOUS efforts to take the attention OFF of position or seeking the highest place and urging them all instead to be servants and take the lowest place.

At any rate, so much for that. Thanks, Rick, for that incisive post.

Dave

The Pope isn't the ruler of the Church. He is it's servant.

St. Peter's name was changed by Jesus. That facts has been established.

Was there any name changing done by God that did not include a mission?

Peace

 

[beamishboy]

Indeed it should be something that all who undertake to teach the Gospel should take note of. But when an interpretation of Scripture arises, what do you measure it against to verify it has been interpreted rightly? When the Ethiopian eunich was reading Isaiah from Scripture and was asked by Philip if he knew what he was reading, he responded with something to the effect of "How can I know, unless someone guides me?"

The Ethiopian eunuch was not a Jew so he could not understand the OT. He was also not theologically trained. If I have a problem with interpretation, I'll look at the Commentaries. Of course anyone can write a commentary. If a commentary has an agenda, it will interpret the verses according to its decided doctrines. I've experienced that when I asked for the interpretation of some verses in the Bible and RCs gave me their official Vatican-approved imprimatur interpretation. I was honestly quite repulsed by the interpretation because it appeared blatantly untrue to me. If you want specifics, I can dig it up. I saved it in pdf format but I need loads of time to find them.

It's very easy to sniff out Commentaries with such an agenda and I naturally won't accept them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Pope isn't the ruler of the Church. He is it's servant.

St. Peter's name was changed by Jesus. That facts has been established.

Was there any name changing done by God that did not include a mission?

Peace

Can't argue with that. What about this Queen, as I believe he may have been "persecuted" by her, since I believe she is represented his Kinfolk.

Revelation 18:7 As much as she glorifies herself and indulges, be giving to Her tormenting and mourning. That in Her heart she is saying 'I am sitting a Queen and Widow not I am and mourning not I shall be seeing'.

 

[lionroar0]

Can't argue with that. What about this Queen, as I believe he may have been "persecuted" by her, since I believe she is represented his Kinfolk.

Revelation 18:7 As much as she glorifies herself and indulges, be giving to Her tormenting and mourning. That in Her heart she is saying 'I am sitting a Queen and Widow not I am and mourning not I shall be seeing'.

I would have never thought of that. That actually makes sense to me.

Although I would say that such persecution ended at the Jewish revolt. Or that major persecution by her ended at that time

That's my speculation.

Peace

 

[archierieus]

St. Peter's name was changed by Jesus. That facts has been established.

No, Jesus did not change his name. He did give him, along with James, John and perhaps others (I need to check) a nickname, which fit his personality and stuck with him. As for 'facts,' not one fact has been presented in support of what you propose here. Never, nowhere in the Bible record, did Jesus change Simon's name. Nor is there any record whatsoever of Jesus' changing Simon's nickname. And Simon sure wasnt no saint!

 

[lionroar0]

No, Jesus did not change his name. He did give him, along with James, John and perhaps others (I need to check) a nickname, which fit his personality and stuck with him. As for 'facts,' not one fact has been presented in support of what you propose here. Never, nowhere in the Bible record, did Jesus change Simon's name. Nor is there any record whatsoever of Jesus' changing Simon's nickname. And Simon sure wasnt no saint!

That's not what Scriptures's says. And other sources.

Peace