What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

[narnia59]

1 Peter 5
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

Exhort -- : 1. to urge, advise, or caution earnestly; admonish urgently. 2. to give urgent advice, recommendations, or warnings.[

By what authority does Peter claim that he can 'exhort' his fellow apostles?

Go back to the list I posted of things unique to Peter and compile a similar list for any other apostle please.

 

[Secundulus]

Rather than approaching it with the hyper-rationalism born of Calvin, approach it with simple faith and there is no barrier at all.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No more interest in the keys?

Forgive me...

Isn't it written by one (or more) of the ECFs that all the Apostles shared the power of the Keys? Even so, Peter held a higher authority?


Thanks,

Jack

 

[ivebeenshown]

So what do you do with the evidence about Peter in the Gospels:

I fail to see how any clear reading of the Gospels can deny that Peter is separated out and given a different role than the collective of the apostles. He alone receives the keys. He alone has his name changed by Christ, and to 'rock'. He alone is told that he is the rock upon which Christ will build his church. He alone is commissioned to shepherd after the resurrection, in the presence of the other apostles. He alone is acknowledged by the outside world as Christ's representative.Christ meets with Peter alone after the resurrection, and then the group. He alone is held accountable for the failings of the others.

Merely one of the twelve? If so, why he is so often singled out, whereas the others are not?

I'll start with these first (I cut some out for the time being.)

Peter receives the keys (which are binding and loosing) but then Jesus gives that same authority to the other Apostles as well.
Peter is not the lone rock that the church is built upon. Paul wrote that the foundation of the Church is the apostles (plural) with Christ as the chief cornerstone. The Church is built on Paul as much as it is Peter, but it is all built on Christ.
Peter himself exhort elders (of whom he is also) to feed and keep oversight of God's flock.
Actually, we are all representative of Christ, which is why we are to keep his example and walk as he walked.
Christ met with Mary Magdalene first after his resurrection. Imagine that, a woman! Christ comes first before the tradition of men.
We are all held accountable for each other -- as portrayed in several of Christ's parables. This is why Christ said 'Saul, why thou persecutest me?' Because if we treat our brother bad we sin against Christ.

By what authority does Peter claim that he can 'exhort' his fellow apostles?

His authority as an elder and Apostle. Paul also had this authority.

 

[narnia59]

I'll start with these first (I cut some out for the time being.)

Peter receives the keys (which are binding and loosing) but then Jesus gives that same authority to the other Apostles as well.

Why is the authority to bind and loose given twice -- first to Peter alone, and then the others collectively? Why when it is given to the others, is there no mention of the keys?

Peter is not the lone rock that the church is built upon. Paul wrote that the foundation of the Church is the apostles (plural) with Christ as the chief cornerstone. The Church is built on Paul as much as it is Peter, but it is all built on Christ.

Yes, it is still all built on Christ. The question is how he manifests that to us. So why is Peter the only person in the NT whose name is changed by God, and why does he alone receive the name of "rock"?

Peter himself exhort elders (of whom he is also) to feed and keep oversight of God's flock.

Yes he is one, and the one who understands he has the authority to exhort the others.

Actually, we are all representative of Christ, which is why we are to keep his example and walk as he walked.

We are all representatives of the presence of Christ, but not the authority of Christ. Only Peter is seen in the Gospel as having the authority to act as the agent of Christ.

Christ met with Mary Magdalene first after his resurrection. Imagine that, a woman! Christ comes first before the tradition of men.

He did meet with Mary Magdalene first. But he still met with Peter alone before he met with the other apostles. Why, if he was just one of them?

We are all held accountable for each other -- as portrayed in several of Christ's parables. This is why Christ said 'Saul, why thou persecutest me?' Because if we treat our brother bad we sin against Christ.

I am speaking of his being accountable for the mistakes of the other apostles. That does not apply to all of us.

His authority as an elder and Apostle. Paul also had this authority.

All the apostles had authority in this way. The question is, why is Peter's authority received separately from the group, and why is he separated out over and over again if there is no meaning to this?

Here's another example -- after the resurrection the angel tells the women to go and tell "Peter and the disciples" that Christ has risen. Why is Peter different from the other apostles in the eyes of the angel?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Isn't it written by one (or more) of the ECFs that all the Apostles shared the power of the Keys? Even so, Peter held a higher authority?
Thanks,
Jack

Howdy Jack
Lots of interesting ECF threads on the Christian History board

http://www.christianforums.com/f84/

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263824
Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

http://www.christianforums.com/t6730673-140/#post42616669
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

 

[boswd]

Isn't it written by one (or more) of the ECFs that all the Apostles shared the power of the Keys? Even so, Peter held a higher authority?


Thanks,

Jack

this is from Orthowiki

The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. His feast is celebrated on June 29 along with the Apostle Paul

Apostle Peter - OrthodoxWiki

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

this is from Orthowiki

The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. His feast is celebrated on June 29 along with the Apostle Paul

Apostle Peter - OrthodoxWiki

Peter and the Apostles were of the circumcision tho right? How come then the RCs do not circimcise themselves as the Apostles did

Gala 2:8 For the inworking to Peter into Apostleship of the circumcision, inworks also to me into the Nations.

Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok you asked what a clear reading would reveal, which is a fair question:

Peter is separated out and given a different role than the collective of the apostles. He alone receives the keys. He alone has his name changed by Christ, and to 'rock'. He alone is told that he is the rock upon which Christ will build his church. He alone is commissioned to shepherd after the resurrection, in the presence of the other apostles. He alone is acknowledged by the outside world as Christ's representative. Christ meets with Peter alone after the resurrection, and then the group. He alone is held accountable for the failings of the others. He alone is told to strengthen the others. We are given the details of Peter's denial only, even though all but John failed Christ. He alone hauls in the net of fish (that represents all the nations) when the collective group could not. We're told all this and then expected to believe he is merely seen by Christ as one of the twelve?

Merely one of the twelve? If so, why he is so often singled out, whereas the others are not?

First of all, let's start with defining "exhort," not via words of men as you have done, but as it's used in the Bible:

1) to call to one's side, call for, summon
2) to address, speak to, (call to, call upon), which may be done in the way of exhortation, entreaty, comfort, instruction, etc.
a) to admonish, exhort
b) to beg, entreat, beseech
1) to strive to appease by entreaty
c) to console, to encourage and strengthen by consolation, to comfort
1) to receive consolation, be comforted
d) to encourage, strengthen
e) exhorting and comforting and encouraging
f) to instruct, teach

Note the whole flavor of it is different than what you've been taught to conclude! Yet this does nothing to belittle Peter, nor to make him any less important.

Peter was physically a big, powerful guy. This was at least half of leadership! The other Disciples had a margin of safety by allowing him to speak and/or act first, because if anybody would screw things all up, Peter would. And he did, time and time again. This does qualify as being servant of all, and we are to find encouragement in the extremes of his failings, yet the Lord never forsook him.

Now let's go to the issue of Jesus re-naming Peter. This was very common practice at the time! And how did Saul of Tarsus come to be known as Paul? Next, the word "Rock" that Jesus builds His Church upon is not the same word used towards Peter. In fact all of the things you list as being unique to Peter are given, and readily available, to ALL believers; i.e, "the communion of Saints." You know, that thing you believe in?

If any of us really understood the authority granted to the individual believer, our worlds would certainly turn upside down

If we pick apart your list a little, we'll see Peter didn't really "haul in all Nations," not nearly as much as Paul did. And while you'll likely consider this blasphemy, Pr televangelists for the past several decades reach WAY more people than Paul ever did, and not everything they say is devoid of Truth nor even the Holy Spirit. (Yes of course it would be better if there was complete purity)

Next, let's look at Scriptural pictures of the Church, and/or the Bride. We see it being built upon Jesus Christ, on the foundation that the Apostles laid. We see it having a wall with 12 foundations. We see it having 12 gates, each of which have the name of an Apostle.

We DON'T see Peter being singled out the way you've been taught to think! We see each of us as being singled out as the lost coin of great price, the 1 lost sheep out of the flock of 100, and the Prodigal Son. And since those pictures aren't nearly enough to express G-d's love and calling upon each of us, we see "the desire of all Nations" as asking us, individually, to be His Bride. I could stack that with all the emoticons available and it wouldn't even come close to doing this concept justice ...

Let's note "the Disciple whom Jesus loved," and ask ourselves who was ever humble in His Presence that wasn't made to feel that same way?

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God"

 

[Secundulus]

this is from Orthowiki

The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. His feast is celebrated on June 29 along with the Apostle Paul

Apostle Peter - OrthodoxWiki

Boswd, you're back.

I see you are reversing history. First Methodist and now Anglican. Keep it up and you will have my faith icon.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Boswd, you're back.

I see you are reversing history. First Methodist and now Anglican. Keep it up and you will have my faith icon.

I think both of you should have mine....less "confusion" that way

1 Corinthians 14:33 for not is of tulmuts/confusion/akata-stasiaV <181> the God, but of Peace, as in all the Outcalleds of the Saints.

Luke 21:9 Whenever yet ye should be hearing battles and tumults/akata-stasiaV <181> no may be being dismayed, for is binding these to be becoming, but not immediately the End

 

[boswd]

Boswd, you're back.

I see you are reversing history. First Methodist and now Anglican. Keep it up and you will have my faith icon.

It's great to see you too my Brother

 

[Secundulus]

And how did Saul of Tarsus come to be known as Paul?

Paul is simply the Greek version of the name Saul. So, when speaking to Greeks and Romans he used their version of his name so as to be listened to by them.

He didn't want to appear as a hick from the provinces who they would dismiss without a hearing.

Edited to add---------
My information is from this book that I read a few months ago.
Amazon.com: St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (9780825436390): William M. Ramsay, Mark Wilson: Books

 

[Secundulus]

I think both of you should have mine....less "confusion" that way

1 Corinthians 14:33 for not is of tulmuts/confusion/akata-stasiaV <181> the God, but of Peace, as in all the Outcalleds of the Saints.

Luke 21:9 Whenever yet ye should be hearing battles and tumults/akata-stasiaV <181> no may be being dismayed, for is binding these to be becoming, but not immediately the End

Yours looks like some Apache dream symbol. It always makes me want to don a loincloth and dance around a fire.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

this is from Orthowiki

The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ. His feast is celebrated on June 29 along with the Apostle Paul

Apostle Peter - OrthodoxWiki

From same source:

The Theological Necessity of Primacy

Orthodoxy has never accepted Rome's self-supported claims of universal jurisdiction, but has always rebuffed them. A closer examination, however, reveals the many subtleties of the issue. As Thomas FitzGerald wrote, "Orthodox theologians have not rejected the concept of primacy, but only its development by the Church of Rome."11
An understanding of corporate personality is important for any study of primacy. Zizioulas writes: "The idea of the incorporation of the 'many' into the 'one,' or of the 'one' as a representative of the 'many' goes back to a time earlier than Paul."12 More directly, he says, "Bishops are not to be understood as individuals, but as heads of communities."13 This would necessitate a single representative showing forth the unity of the episcopate. There is another important point here: that primacy belongs to a see, not to an individual. As Zizioulas states: "In an ecclesiology of communion, we have not a communion of individuals, but of churches."14
The Orthodox understanding of primacy is rooted in the need for taxis. Meyendorff explains:
It is a fact, however, that there has never been a time when the Church did not recognize a certain "order" among first the apostles, then the bishops, and that, in this order, one apostle, St. Peter, and later, one bishop, heading a particular church, occupied the place of a "primate."15
Zizioulas says that the question of Roman primacy must be approached theologically rather than historically; if primacy was only contingent on historical developments, then it could not be viewed as a necessity for the Church.16 His question is, does Roman Primacy belong to the esse of the Church or is it only for her bene esse?

Primacy and Unity in Orthodox Ecclesiology - OrthodoxWiki

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by razeontherock And how did Saul of Tarsus come to be known as Paul?

Paul is simply the Greek version of the name Saul. So, when speaking to Greeks and Romans he used their version of his name so as to be listened to by them.

He didn't want to appear as a hick from the provinces who they would dismiss without a hearing.

Ever read thru Samuel when the Israelites demanded a king to lead them as the heathens had, and God gave them Saul.
Then in Acts, Jesus brings Saul/Paul on the scene and instead of persecuting the Christians, he ends up being a leader to the Nations.
Interesting relating those 2.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7287770
Why was Saul also Paul in Acts 1

1Samuel 19:10 And Sha'uwl/<#4549 sought to smite David even to the wall with the javelin, but he slipped away out of Sha'uwl's presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall: and David fled, and escaped that night.

Young) Acts 9:4 and having fallen upon the earth, he heard a voice saying to him, `Saul/saoul <4549>, Saul/saoul <4549>, why Me dost thou persecute?'

 

[narnia59]

Now let's go to the issue of Jesus re-naming Peter. This was very common practice at the time! And how did Saul of Tarsus come to be known as Paul? Next, the word "Rock" that Jesus builds His Church upon is not the same word used towards Peter. In fact all of the things you list as being unique to Peter are given, and readily available, to ALL believers; i.e, "the communion of Saints." You know, that thing you believe in?

Common? For God to change someone's name? Point to any other person in the NT where this occurs, outside of Peter. Point to where this occurs in the OT, outside of Abraham, Sarah, and Israel. It is a rare and meaningful thing in Scripture for God to change someone's name.

Saul left his conversion encounter with Christ still being Saul of Tarsus. If you note, one is merely reading along in the book of Acts, and it mentions Saul, also known as Paul, and he's referred to as Paul from that point forward. Most scholars I have read believe he actually had two names, Saul from his Jewish heritage and Paul as a Roman citizen. It was Paul who started presenting himself as Paul, for two reasons. First, in order to distance himself from Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor of the church. Second, to better leverage his Roman citizenship, as we see him doing. Regardless, his name is not changed by God.

If you are referring to petros/petra, I would point out that Strong's concordance identifies petra as being "Feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively) -- rock." Nice of Jesus to not want to give Peter a feminine name and instead use the masculine form, isn't it? Regardless of that controversy, let's not forget the name Jesus actually gives Simon is the Aramaic Cephas, which Strong's identifies as ""a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter".

 

[narnia59]

If we pick apart your list a little, we'll see Peter didn't really "haul in all Nations," not nearly as much as Paul did. And while you'll likely consider this blasphemy, Pr televangelists for the past several decades reach WAY more people than Paul ever did, and not everything they say is devoid of Truth nor even the Holy Spirit. (Yes of course it would be better if there was complete purity)

This reference is in John 21. In verse 6 it notes that the net is so full of fish that they (the apostles together), could not haul it in. In verse 11, it says that "So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them".

Again, a point in Scripture where Peter is 'separated' from the others. The point?

The significance of the 153? St. Jerome in the 4th century claims that Greek zoologists had identified 153 different kinds of fish. This anticipates how the apostles who have been made fishers of men by Christ will gather believers from every nation into the church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
Regardless of that controversy, let's not forget the name Jesus actually gives Simon is the Aramaic Cephas, which Strong's identifies as ""a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter".

My goodness....there are plenty of "Peter" threads on GT to discuss that [tho this one is a favorite of mine ehehe]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7442477/
Peter Is Not The Rock! (2)

This post was made by a RC on the first thread before it was split......it has since "disappeared"

Post #140
YOU WIN!

The weight of that rock is crushing!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

oooops......DP......