M
Maranatha
Guest
You forgot to mention that after deciding to go with Peter’s boat it was from there that he taught the people.
- Status
E
EA_Man
Guest
Matthew 19:27-28
Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
This passage backs up what I’m saying. Peter is saying “we left everything to follow you, what will our reward be?” Jesus is telling them (all - twelve thrones, not just one for Peter) that they will have their reward in the renewed Creation.
The point of Luke 5 is not whose boat Jesus sat in while He taught. The point is that they left their earthly resources (their livelihoods) to follow Jesus. They ‘sold all that they had to purchase the “pearl of great price”’.
Jesus taught in many places. Are we to interpret what each location reveals as to the claims of Petrine Succession?
Scripture calls John “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Does that mean that Jesus didn’t love the other disciples? Of course not.
L
laadan
Guest
This is a very difficult passage to understand, but I will try to unpack it for you.
There were two boats, and Jesus got into Peter’s boat asked Peter to push off a ways, and then He began teaching.
(Whew! Almost blew a brain vein on that one)
S
steve_b
Guest
I learned growing up that there are 3 rules for Biblical interpretation:
*]Context
*]Context
*]Context
From this (Luke 5:1-3) context, your argument makes no sense…We would all have to go to the seaside in order to hear Christ’s teachings. We would have to come from a “deserted place” (see ch 4, vv42ff), & we would have to follow Andrew as well as Peter, whilst leaving James & John without a place in the Christian faith.
I am sure that this is not the point that you were trying to make.Un fortunately, it seems to be theplace where your question inexorably leads.
God bless.
Scripturally speaking, laying the case down in an orderly fashion, from OT to NT is all part of context, correct?
I can see the pholemic now, if Jesus were to get in one boat and Peter was in the other…Phew!!!..,what a disconnect! In other words, whatever boat Peter is in, Jesus is in the other boat. Holy COW!!!
Yet one could ask, why didn’t Luke just say that Jesus got into a boat, period, dot, end of sentence? Does scripture add details needlessly? Why add the little detail that it was Peter’s boat?
Could it be that being God, through whom all things are made, Jesus saw in advance, the need to communicate to us in consistant orderly fashion, little details like this about how He accomplishes salvation? So that one day perhaps, people would make the contextual connection between Noah’s Ark, Peter’s boat, and His Church He builds on Peter?
L
laadan
Guest
steve b:
You are allegorizing, as the original question is.
L
LoneRanger
Guest
Peter’s boat may have just been closest to shore…
S
steve_b
Guest
It’s interesting how Jesus qualifies His promise to them. He says only those who have followed. In otherwords it has to be a completed event. One who has persevered till the end of their life.
- We know one guy out of the 12 who didn’t persevere till the end of his life. Judas. Now we’re down to 11. One throne open
- Judas was replaced by Mattias after Jesus returns to heaven. Now we’re back to 12 .
- But Paul says he’s an apostle too. That makes 13. But there’s only 12 thrones. Who doesn’t get a throne?
It seems to me these thrones are speaking of heavenly rewards, therefore, it’s a different issue than the one you raise.
E
Exporter
Guest
I think that you either have a bad attitude or you are prejudiced ( meaning you do not have all the facts therefore are giveing a stated opinion.)
S
steve_b
Guest
Does the bible not use allegory?
S
steve_b
Guest
Regarding scripture, I don’t believe in coincidences.
L
Lilyofthevalley
Guest
There were clearly two boats. One is Simon Peter’s and the other was not. Christ got in to Simon’s boat to teach and not the other. I would suggest that if Protestants were really Bible Christians, they would get in to Peter’s boat as well.
Oh you are sooo right, I will run right down to the local Catholic Church and convert…
L
laadan
Guest
steve b:
I see much allegorizing and spiritualizing of texts that are better understood simply.
I trust Paul in his allegory, he writes under the Spirit’s direction.
The allegory presented here is written under a presupposition’s direction.
Indeed, in Gal 4:24, where Paul states that it is allegory, so that there is no confusion…
I see much allegorizing and spiritualizing of texts that are better understood simply.
I trust Paul in his allegory, he writes under the Spirit’s direction.
The allegory presented here is written under a presupposition’s direction.
M
Maranatha
Guest
It still seems clear to me too. Scriptural support seems overwhelming.
E
Eden
Guest
I think you are on the right track now.
E
Eden
Guest
Do you have a response to the particular question in the original post? You gave a rote answer. I’m just trying to help you out here because, if you noticed, no one else paid attention to it but it could prove interesting if you expand upon the idea.
- Status