M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Thank you. You are a good person.
- Status
K
kleary
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
In the last supper paintings they have John sitting at the right of Jesus. Therefore Baptist friend you are making assumptions according to the last supper painted by Leonardo DeVinci. Are you about to say that maybe who is at the right is not John at all but Mary Magdalene?
The same with Mass facing the people- first done by Luther because he wanted the celebrant to look like Jesus in the last supper paintings.
Ken
In the last supper paintings they have John sitting at the right of Jesus. Therefore Baptist friend you are making assumptions according to the last supper painted by Leonardo DeVinci. Are you about to say that maybe who is at the right is not John at all but Mary Magdalene?
The same with Mass facing the people- first done by Luther because he wanted the celebrant to look like Jesus in the last supper paintings.
Ken
M
MariaG
Guest
This sums it up for me. Even IF we knew exactly where everyone was seated and even if John was in the most important spot, and even if…
Well you get the point. All it proves is that the disciple “whom Jesus loved” was most important because God values love. I mean, He did know who was going to stick it out to the end with Him and His mother.
For example,
If God were to make a seating chart, would he sit Prince Charles on the righthand or Mother Teresa. Vice President Cheney or Billy Graham?
What about all the OT stories where the younger son gets the nod?
God does not find power, authority, positions or birth order to be a deciding factor on who “sits on the right hand”.
God Bless,
Maria
N
NPS
Guest
:yup: Sort of like letting “Jewish custom” set your Christian biblical canon 90+ years (minimum) after Christ.
But…if it suits your purpose, you do it. :whacky:
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
NPS said:
R
RobbyS
Guest
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Daniel Marsh:
The one I used to have is from a slightly different angle, It was horseshoe shaped. Maybe two different photographers?
A
allischalmers
Guest
All I can say is understanding Jewish customs of biblical times helps understand why things happen as they did. but if you want to ignore that it is alright.
Let me ask, how many cakes were on the Passover table, which one did Jesus take to share with the twelve, all these things help in understanding the last supper.
forever Baptist
allischalmers
Let me ask, how many cakes were on the Passover table, which one did Jesus take to share with the twelve, all these things help in understanding the last supper.
forever Baptist
allischalmers
F
Fidelis
Guest
Changing the subject does address post #3 or any of the other posts that refuted the premise of your original assertion.
C’mon, allischalmers-- have the humility to admit you are off-target once in a while. You will get a better hearing here if you can do so when appropriate.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
That won’t help you either Allis…If you wanna go by Jewish customs, then you better start dunkin’ the infants in your congregation, especially the boys on the eighth day!
D
Della
Guest
Once again a bogus attempt at misdirection. The Bible doesn’t tell us that the Apostles shared any other bread than the one Jesus consecrated, so even if they had eaten other bread on the table, it still has nothing to do with the validity of the Eucharist as taught by Christ’s Church. You, dear soul, are grasping at straws and are, thereby, only creating strawmen, not cogent arguments for anything.
J
JaneFrances
Guest
Allis:
Despite some of our fun and frivolity in light of your “Biblical evidence Peter no Pope” assertion, please do not think for one moment that the Church ignores the impact of hermeneutics when considering the context of Scripture. No one is saying here that ancient Jewish custom is unimportant to our understanding of Scripture. Be assured that the Church has always had a very comprehensive and intensive understanding of the role of such factors.
However, there is much frustration regarding your assertion that Peter wasn’t the Christ-appointed leader of the early Church because you proport he wasn’t sitting at Jesus’ right hand at the Last Supper.
My personal frustration with your arguement is based on several points:
- You have chosen to refute the primacy of Peter and the papacy with an extra-Biblical suppostion (ie, we don’t really KNOW who sat where).
- You have chosen one particular Jewish customary practice as your “proof” that Peter wasn’t the the leader of the early Church in spite of the numerous other Old and New Testament Biblical “proofs” that would suggest otherwise.
- You have chosen to focus on and favor one point of ancient Jewish custom, seemingly, without regard for 2000 years of Christian Tradition, especially considering that Jesus Christ, Himself, exhibited many times His inconsistency with what many Jews would regard as “customary.”
P
Palamite
Guest
allischalmers,
“He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…’We are able to drink the chalice.’” (Volume X, St.John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2)
…and…
“Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod” (Volume XI, St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI)
Funny, no one is running around claiming to have “universal and immediate jurisdiction” in the name of either Sts.James and John. Perhaps we should make Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem and Metropolitan Chrysostom of Ephesus aware that they shouldn’t be settling for piddly archepiscopal titles when they could be “Vicars of Christ” along with the Pope…
I don’t know about any of this, but according to the Fathers, several of the Apostles are deserving of the title coryphaeus or “leader(s) of the chorus”, most especially Sts.Peter, James, and John. St.John Chrysostom wrote…
“He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…’We are able to drink the chalice.’” (Volume X, St.John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2)
…and…
“Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod” (Volume XI, St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI)
Funny, no one is running around claiming to have “universal and immediate jurisdiction” in the name of either Sts.James and John. Perhaps we should make Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem and Metropolitan Chrysostom of Ephesus aware that they shouldn’t be settling for piddly archepiscopal titles when they could be “Vicars of Christ” along with the Pope…
M
Mickey
Guest
**CHARITY ALERT!!!
**St John Chrysostom says:
“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])
“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race from the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])
“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])
“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])
“Peter, the base, the pillar…” (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])
“This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation.” (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48])
E
Eireann
Guest
It’s interesting that this has been said in the Bible, “the one whom Jesus loved” although off track here I’m assuming that this was an obervation from others, and not actual words of Jesus.
**Is there anything recorded that Jesus said He favoured John more than the rest of the Apostles ? **
I’m not trying to start a quarrel but I have wondered about this for a long time.
This would say to me that God has favourites, when I don’t think He has, just from listening to what Jesus said about John the Baptist would take care of that.
The least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.
V
VociMike
Guest
Was John the most important Apostle?
If not, there goes your whole theory.
P
Palamite
Guest
Mickey,
Face it - the monarchic/pyramidal ecclessiology of the RCC with the Pope at the top, is not Patristic - it would not have even occured to Fathers like Pope St.Gregory the Great (who was always keen on guaranteeing the canonical rights of Rome in terms of it’s pre-eminance), who clearly taught that the idea of being a “Universal Patriarch” above all other Bishops amounted to a diminishing of the Priesthood of all Bishops, an arrogant pretense, and (his words, not mine, so don’t get angry with me) “precursor of the Anti-Christ”.
Besides, “first” - since when does “first” mean “universal juristiction” or “infallible” or “possessor of the two swords” (though recent Popes have gone pretty quiet about that idea) or “above being judged by any man, including Ecumenical Councils”? I’d sooner believe what the Scriptures say. Namely that St.Peter was…
Yikes, touchy. Sorry for calling the Pope “Vicar of Christ”.
etc., etc. yes, yes. And we also know the same St.John Chrysostom (as I’ve just shown) called Sts.John and James “heads” of the Church as well. He also explicitly teaches elsewhere that all of the Apostles “received the keys”, because he understands (as biblical context and the other Fathers who address this indicate) the “keys” to be a sign of the power to “bind and loose”, which St.Matthew 18:18 says was later promised to all of the Apostles.
Face it - the monarchic/pyramidal ecclessiology of the RCC with the Pope at the top, is not Patristic - it would not have even occured to Fathers like Pope St.Gregory the Great (who was always keen on guaranteeing the canonical rights of Rome in terms of it’s pre-eminance), who clearly taught that the idea of being a “Universal Patriarch” above all other Bishops amounted to a diminishing of the Priesthood of all Bishops, an arrogant pretense, and (his words, not mine, so don’t get angry with me) “precursor of the Anti-Christ”.
You aren’t reading very closely - he calls Sts.James and John this as well, and elsewhere (not cited, but I can find the passages if you’re interested) he applies this title (coryphaeus) to Sts.Andrew and Paul as well.
Besides, “first” - since when does “first” mean “universal juristiction” or “infallible” or “possessor of the two swords” (though recent Popes have gone pretty quiet about that idea) or “above being judged by any man, including Ecumenical Councils”? I’d sooner believe what the Scriptures say. Namely that St.Peter was…
- the first to confess the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ (which the Fathers generally understand to be the bedrock of the Church - Simon bar Jonah was re-named because he, being the first confessor, is relatively so.)
- the first to receive the promise of the Priesthood (though he in fact received it at the same time as the other Apostles.)
- the first to preach the Gospel.
- the first to work miracles in Christ’s Name after Pentecost.
- among the first to suffer at the hands of men for Christ’s sake.
- the first to preside over the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the infant Church of Jerusalem.
M
Mickey
Guest
It is your anti-Roman Catholic sarcasm and your wordy cynicism that is not very becoming.
Yes, we’ve heard this argument from protestantism for a very long time. I’m not here to convince you otherwise.
St John Chrysostom also says:
“See the unanimity of the apostles,” he says, on Acts 2:4: “they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach.” “Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ’s right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles, always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they gave up the first place to Peter, and in preaching they set him first, though he seemed of rougher manners than the others.”
AND
“I would willing ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son: Which are the greater gifts, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave to him to spread that of the Father and of Himself throughout the world, and to a mortal man He entrusted the power over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to him who extended the Church throughout the world, and showed it stronger than the world.” (Hom 54[55] in Matt VII, 531[546] seq)
AND
“After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: ‘Peter lovest thou Me more than these?’” (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])
P
Philthy
Guest
Oh yea - that’s a smoking gun if Ive seen one. Strong work allis. Keep up your rigorous pursuit of the Truth - I can tell you are making leaps and bounds towards the conclusions you have already embraced as true, regardless of the facts…
C
ChristsSoldier
Guest
Be Blessed,
I agree with JaneFrances’ reply and don’t find issue with ‘where’ Peter sat at the last supper.
I’ve read much about John’s placement at the cross and last supper and see no issue when contrasted against evidence like JaneFrances’ reply.
Your point on the importance of the order of seating is valid, but I don’t see how it applies in the leadership of the Church.
I regret the lack of respect shown in the dog piled sarcasm that is found in threads like this, your question was sound and reasonable and I hope Jane answered it.
The liberty of the right arm also plays in to the sash our Deacons wear which only leave the labor hand free.
For those requiring a seating chart, please read on.
Peace,
CS
New Advents’ article on “The Bosom of Abraham” explains the importance of seating in Christ’s day (and before) best:
newadvent.org/cathen/01055a.htm
according to Maldonatus (In Lucam, xvi, 22), whose theory has since been accepted by many scholars, the metaphor “to be in Abraham’s Bosom” is derived from the custom of reclining on couches at table which prevailed among the Jews during and before the time of Christ. As at a feast each guest leaned on his left elbow so as to leave his right arm at liberty, and as two or more lay on the same couch, the head of one man was near the breast of the man who lay behind, and he was therefore said “to lie in the bosom” of the other. It was also considered by the Jews of old a mark of special honour and favour for one to be allowed to lie in the bosom of the master of the feast (cf. John 13:23). And it is by this illustration that they pictured the next world. They conceived of the reward of the righteous dead as a sharing in a banquet given by Abraham, “the father of the faithful” (cf. Matthew 8:11 sqq.), and of the highest form of that reward as lying in “Abraham’s Bosom”.
- Status