Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seems pretty clear to me that the entire pattern of Luke-Acts is a movement from the religion of the Jewish prophets, through John the Baptist, through our Lord, to the apostles as exemplified by Peter, to Paul and the Gentiles. In a full reading of the two books it's hard to miss it.Well GCC, that is a matter of interpretation.
Seems pretty clear to me that the entire pattern of Luke-Acts is a movement from the religion of the Jewish prophets, through John the Baptist, through our Lord, to the apostles as exemplified by Peter, to Paul and the Gentiles. In a full reading of the two books it's hard to miss it.
Well, friend, don't get me wrong- being a Lutheran, I obvious have no love for the institution of the papacy as it is currently justified. But I guess it just seems to me that Peter's prominance in the gospels- his confession and the 'rock' passage, and our Lord's charge to him to feed his sheep- in combination with his highly prominent role among the early apostles just leads me to believe that he really, truly did have a special role in the early church. Just my analysis.I don't hold to the interpretation of Peter being above the other apostles. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way downplaying Peter's ministry, but there is no evidence that Peter had an exalted role compared to the other apostles.
I don't hold to the interpretation of Peter being above the other apostles. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way downplaying Peter's ministry, but there is no evidence that Peter had an exalted role compared to the other apostles.
Well, friend, don't get me wrong- being a Lutheran, I obvious have no love for the institution of the papacy as it is currently justified. But I guess it just seems to me that Peter's prominance in the gospels- his confession and the 'rock' passage, and our Lord's charge to him to feed his sheep- in combination with his highly prominent role among the early apostles just leads me to believe that he really, truly did have a special role in the early church. Just my analysis.
I don't pretend to know the answer. The twentieth century is filled with hundreds of articles published in scholarly journals trying to determine his identity, with answers ranging from the traditional answer of the Apostle John to a symbolic figure representing the apostolic ideal. I'm quite satisfied with 'I have no idea.'So tell me GCC, which is the disciple that Jesus loved?
John 13:23
23One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.
Really? Not trying to start an argument, but what about these verses (I'm just doing this from memory but you'll recognize these passages)
- Peter, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Saying something 3 times back then was like a legal contract. That Jesus said this was hugely important. It makes Peter the shepherd of Christ's sheep. Notice, Jesus doesn't say this to any other apostles.
- Notice that in just about every time that more than a few apostles are mentioned, it is "Peter and the apostles did this" or "Peter and the apostles did that." Gotta be a reason for that.
- Christ specifically prayed that Peter's faith would "fail not". Also, Peter is the only apostle commanded by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren."
When Mary Magdalene sees the angel at the open tomb, he says to her "go tell Peter and the apostles what you have seen' - why wouldn't he just say 'the apostles.' ? Again there must be some reason for that.
Peter is FIRST in:
- performing a miracle after Christ (with the shadow)
- raising someone from the dead after Christ
- taking the lead in replacing Judas
- to receive the Gentiles (after his dream)
- have a miracle worked for him while he is out preaching (released from prison by the angel)
- first to combat heresy (simon the magician)
Peter is the only one of the 12 to have a name changed by God. As students of the Bible we know this is of tremendous import. Actually, I think his name was changed as soon as he met Jesus!
Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Peter is given the ability to bind and loose sins. Peter is called the 'rock' on which the Church is built.
Peter is clearly the leader. There are probably tons more examples from Scripture but that's all I can remember.
And yours is correct because....?Sorry friend, but that is the RC interpretation.
These two examples, compared to the 20 something I listed, proves that leaders are not perfect.n Acts 15:1-23 James takes over after Peter talks and gives his judgment not Peter's.
In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul corrects Peter.
And if the president called himself an American citizen.... would he not be a leader?In 1 Peter 5 Peter calls himself a fellow elder.
Again, leaders are not perfect. Obviously, Jesus did not mean Peter = satan, He meant that Peter's speech was advocating something against the will of the Father... something which has its ultimate source in satan. Later on Peter denied Christ... but the important part - he was restored by Christ.In Matthew 16:23 Jesus calls Peter Satan.
I would like you to address what I wrote in the other post, with something more than "Sorry that is the RC interpretation."Peter is clearly NOT the leader nor did he ever intended to be.
That is called an argument from ignorance in technical terms... you can't disprove something by claiming it hasn't been proven true.... in 2 epistles, no less.There is nothing in 1 and 2 Peter that even hints at Peter's primacy.
I don't pretend to know the answer. The twentieth century is filled with hundreds of articles published in scholarly journals trying to determine his identity, with answers ranging from the traditional answer of the Apostle John to a symbolic figure representing the apostolic ideal. I'm quite satisfied with 'I have no idea.'
Hi, here are a couple that come to mind.Peter is the only one of the 12 to have a name changed by God. As students of the Bible we know this is of tremendous import. Actually, I think his name was changed as soon as he met Jesus!
The first thing that I am going to ask you is to refrain from referring to my post as "my" interpretation. You belong to a church and believe in their teachings and I belong to a church and believe in their teachings. So keep the debate to substance instead of what "I" believe.And yours is correct because....?
The examples that you provided are paraphrases of what the RC teaches.IThese two examples, compared to the 20 something I listed, proves that leaders are not perfect.
Strawman.And if the president called himself an American citizen.... would he not be a leader?
You are absolutely correct, leaders are not perfect and I have no problem with what you said here.Again, leaders are not perfect. Obviously, Jesus did not mean Peter = satan, He meant that Peter's speech was advocating something against the will of the Father... something which has its ultimate source in satan. Later on Peter denied Christ... but the important part - he was restored by Christ.
I did, however, it is contrary to what the RC teaches.I would like you to address what I wrote in the other post, with something more than "Sorry that is the RC interpretation."
LOL! That makes absolutely no sense. The two epistles of Peter is merely one piece of evidence among many.That is called an argument from ignorance in technical terms... you can't disprove something by claiming it hasn't been proven true.... in 2 epistles, no less.
I did and I disagree with the RC's interpretation.So, let me know what you think of what I wrote in my other post. I honestly can't see how someone could think that does not mean Peter is a leader.
protestants and orthodox seem to assume that the catholic church is a one man show, well lets burst that bubble right now, there are lots of important bishops priests and lay members all across the globe, all of them with differant ministries, it is the collage of bishops with 23 Churches combined to form the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.Lets not forget that before the end of the first century, Clement in his epistle states that he does not command the churches as Peter and Paul did.
Three implications.
.................................................
Second, Paul also commanded the church, leading me to believe in episcopal equality such that the Eastern Orthodox profess.
...................................
You know, you're right.protestants and orthodox seem to assume that the catholic church is a one man show, well lets burst that bubble right now, there are lots of important bishops priests and lay members all across the globe, all of them with differant ministries, it is the collage of bishops with 23 Churches combined to form the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
yea thats how we roll
in my Bible, a footnote mentions that in the passage where Paul "corrects" Peter, one of the words is a term implying that this was "planned between them". Anotherwords, this happened in this way so that those that Peter served could be "brought along" as slowly as they needed ...Sorry friend, but that is the RC interpretation.
In Acts 15:1-23 James takes over after Peter talks and gives his judgment not Peter's.
In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul corrects Peter.
In 1 Peter 5 Peter calls himself a fellow elder.
In Matthew 16:23 Jesus calls Peter Satan.
Peter is clearly NOT the leader nor did he ever intended to be. There is nothing in 1 and 2 Peter that even hints at Peter's primacy.
protestants and orthodox seem to assume that the catholic church is a one man show, well lets burst that bubble right now, there are lots of important bishops priests and lay members all across the globe, all of them with differant ministries, it is the collage of bishops with 23 Churches combined to form the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
yea thats how we roll
in my Bible, a footnote mentions that in the passage where Paul "corrects" Peter, one of the words is a term implying that this was "planned between them". Anotherwords, this happened in this way so that those that Peter served could be "brought along" as slowly as they needed ...
I had read that also but have no way to verify it.
as for John being the "beloved" disciple, Tradition teaches this, too. (In icons of the "Last Supper", he is shown with his head near the chest of Christ). Tradition also teaches that he was the youngest of the disciples (still in his teens).
I agree. The scriptural clues, although not conclusive, certainly point to John as the disciple that Jesus loved. Also, it does make sense that John was the youngest considering that he died around 100AD.
the Lord Jesus Christ, just like all of mankind and the angels
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?