I think it's probably important for us too. I mean, it's in the Bible - God must want us to know about it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
I think it's probably important for us too. I mean, it's in the Bible - God must want us to know about it.The change of Peters name was not for anyone but For Peter.. It was not meant for you and it was not meant for I.. It was between Him and Peter..
There is no reason the suppose that Jesus was not quoted verbatim by Matthew. Jesus and eleven of the twelve were Galileans, who used Greek koine as lingua franca. The exception, Judas Iscariot, being the purser, must have known koine. And on this occasion, far to the north, in Caesarea Philippi, and privately, there was no great need to use Aramaic.Sorry, I don't buy the roman propaganda used to support the tyranny of popes.
Clearly in the original Greek there is two different words for peter and for the rock that Christ built His Church upon.
Even if we assume it the originals were written in Aramaic it would still stand to reason that there was purpose in using 2 different words when translated to Greek and later to English. And of course, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church and it is the confession of Him being Lord that makes us part of His Church, all living stones....and not built on pete.
OK Monica, what is the reason God called James and John "Sons of Thunder"?why did Christ change his name to 'rock'?
I'm asking because God does everything for a reason.
I'm not Monica, but my 2 cents...OK Monica, what is the reason God called James and John "Sons of Thunder"?
John
What a travesty.And then along with Peter are James and John who are separated from the rest and are the pillars of the church.
I'm not Monica, but my 2 cents...
If you google you can find all sorts of studies on this -- supports the idea that people understand that nothing in scripture is insignificant. Most refer to this as being an identification with what would become their zeal for God's word and Word.
This cannot be looked at in the same light as an actual name change that occurs with Abraham, Isaac and Peter. They were still known as James and John going forward.
However, it does still have significance, and that should be clear in reading the Bible. Peter is by far the most prominent, and many things occur between Jesus and Peter alone. But following that, it is clear that the trio -- Peter, James and John make up a core as well separate from the 12. They are the 3 present at the Transfiguration. They are the 3 called 'pillars of the church'. They are the 3 present with Jesus in the garden of Gethsamane. However, you will notice that when Jesus finds them all asleep -- who does he hold accountable for that? Peter.
So there is undoubtedly a hierarchy established among the apostles. Peter, the only one who assumes a new name -- Rock. The one Jesus says to that "upon this rock I will build my church". The only one commissioned by Jesus in the role of shepherd (feed my sheep, tend my sheep). The one Jesus appeared to first, and alone after the resurrection. The one Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
And then along with Peter are James and John who are separated from the rest and are the pillars of the church.
As was Simon...This cannot be looked at in the same light as an actual name change that occurs with Abraham, Isaac and Peter. They were still known as James and John going forward.
Ga 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.Yes there are three present with Jesus in the transfiguration. Look at who was there.. The Prophets and the Law. Now where does Jesus hold Peter responsible for them sleeping? The teachings are the pillar of the Church not the men..
I think that there is indeed significance in the difference when Jesus calls him Simon vs. Peter. Simon tends to show up when he isn't being very 'rock-like'. In this exchange after the resurrection, there are at least two things happening here (which is common in scripture). One is the obvious reference to 'tending sheep'. Jesus had referred to himself as the 'good shepherd' and used that analogy many times. The giving to Peter alone this role -- the command to 'tend my sheep' is obvious.As was Simon...
John 21:15-17Since nothing Jesus did was without significance, why do you think Christ now calls him Simon again? What happened to "thou art Peter." Do you think it is significant that the last conversation the bible records between Christ and the brother of Andrew, He now calls him Simon?
15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I am attached to thee. He says to him, Feed my lambs. 16 He says to him again a second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I am attached to thee. He says to him, Shepherd my sheep. 17 He says to him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, art thou attached to me? Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, Art thou attached to me? and said to him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I am attached to thee. Jesus says to him, Feed my sheep.
John
He just happened to ask Peter? Over and over and over again Peter is singled out by coincidence? He just happened to appear to Peter first and alone before the other 12 after the resurrection? He just happened to change only Peter's name? He just happened to choose to pay Peter and his taxes from the same coin? He just happened to give only Peter the keys to the kingdom? He just happened to pray only for Peter at the last supper that when he 'came back' he would strengthen his brothers? He just happened to tell Peter alone to tend his sheep? All of these things just happened?Does that mean He held Peter responsible for the other? Or was it that He just asked Peter? Did Peter answer Him? Every word that Jesus said to Peter does not make Him any more significant than Paul or James or any other Apostle.
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
Eph 2:17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR;
Eph 2:18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
Eph 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
Eph 2:22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
Lets look at the before and the after of the Galatians scripture you gave.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
Gal 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Gal 2:10 They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
The lesson you are promoting here is that scripture can be separated into two categories -- that which is significant to us today, and that which is not.Nope but does that make Peter above any of the other apotles? Nope. Does that make Peter the Petras as to what Jesus built His Church on? Nope. So does the change of Peters be if signifance to us as the Body of Christ? nope.. But It sure was significant to Peter.
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?