B
benhur
Guest
Yes. first amongst equals.
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Did you tabulate right ? One vote says Peter is the rock, but then says it does not transfer to successors. Does that cancel out " y" ? Maybe we need a vote on the latter also.I see the quote mine apologetics is still going strong. I will say for a group that always says “truth is not up for a vote” you guys sure are fond of tabulating quotes to support your position. Well, 15 fathers say x, and 20 say *y *,so obviously *y *is true.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Was Joseph first among equals in Egypt?
Or was only Pharaoh higher in rank than he?
Please review post #1 and PROVE me wrong. Assertions don’t cut it.
B
benhur
Guest
Right, just as Peter did at the Jerusalem council. Well not exactly. I thought all we knew was that Clement probably wrote the letter, on behalf of the church at Rome, just as James wrote for the council at Jerusalem. Clement’s name, just as Peter’s, are not found on the proceeding documents intended for the churches. Of course, purely our of humility , right?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Randy that’s not how this works. You don’t start with a conclusion and then tell others to disprove it. I could take verses of Scripture and make the Bible mean pretty much anything I want. Various heresies have been doing that for two millennium.
P
Peter_J
Guest
:tsktsk: Don’t be so unpatriotic. What would the internet be without quote mining? And think what a collapse of the internet would do to society!
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I can always count on you.:tsktsk: Don’t be so unpatriotic. What would the internet be without quote mining? And think what a collapse of the internet would do to society!
It does make us all think we’re pretty smart doesn’t it?
B
benhur
Guest
Ok A king has a next in rank. Who was it before Joseph ? Who was it after ? Pharaoh never again had equal cabinet members to fulfill his wishes ? Do you wish for me to withdraw my assertion that Peter was first ? Once there were twelve brothers whose destiny was to form a nation that yielded our messiah. Were they equal but with different roles ? Was one tribe supreme over the others ? Did not the Lord rule over them all, without a steward, for there was no king ?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Do you believe he was asking for permission? Should I find all the questions Jesus asked the Apostles and ask you the same thing? It is a rhetorical question, or a challenge which he is putting forth. Its more like saying, “No one can forbid their Baptism.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Ben-
I actually HAVE demonstrated that Peter made the call at the Council of Jerusalem, and I have posted it about a dozen times or more over the years.
No. James did not WRITE the letter. He proposed it. This becomes really clear when you examine the dynamics of the parties involved.
See Peter, James and the Council. - post #139 - in this very thread.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Randy, I didn’t notice this before…Ben-
I actually HAVE demonstrated that Peter made the call at the Council of Jerusalem, and I have posted it about a dozen times or more over the years.
No. James did not WRITE the letter. He proposed it. This becomes really clear when you examine the dynamics of the parties involved.
See Peter, James and the Council. - post #139 - in this very thread.
Is this true that “Symeon” is Peter? I wondered who this was, and if it was Peter. Is this a unique rendering of his (Specifically Peter’s) name in the Scriptures?
P
Peter_J
Guest
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes Peter J,
Its actually Simeon the Prophet who saw Him at the Presentation in the Temple.
It’s Luke 2
And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” 25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem,** whose name was Simeon**, and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And inspired by the Spirit[c] he came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, 28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,
29 “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace,
according to thy word;
30 for mine eyes have seen thy salvation
31 which thou hast prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and for glory to thy people Israel.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Guys-
Start with the verse in question:
Acts 15:14New International Version (NIV)
14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles.
Footnotes:
[a]Acts 15:14 Greek Simeon, a variant of Simon; that is, Peter
Simon = Simeon = Symeon = Shime’on > renamed Peter = Cephas = Kepha = Rock
Symeon (or Simon) is the original Semitic name of Simon Peter transliterated into Greek (Heb. Shime’on, Gen. 29:33). It is used of him only here and in the Greek text of 2 Pet. 1:1
R
rcwitness
Guest
Perhaps you are right, Randall…
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the
Gentiles
James begins with taking notice of Peter’s speech, and agrees to it, and confirms it; for by Simeon is not meant, as some have thought, the Simeon that took Christ in his arms, ( Luke 2:25 ) who had been dead long ago; but Simon Peter, who had spoken before. Simon and Simeon are one and the same name; the former is only a contraction of the latter in the Syriac language; Simeon was his pure Hebrew name, and James speaking to an assembly of Hebrews, uses it; and observes, that he had given a very clear and distinct narrative, how God at the first preaching of the Gospel, quickly after the day of Pentecost, was pleased to look upon the Gentiles, and show favour to them, and visit them in a way of grace and mercy, by sending the Gospel to them, and his Spirit to make it effectual: this was a gracious visit; he came and looked upon them, quickened them, and spoke comfortably to them, and bestowed special favours upon them; the set time for such a visit being come: the Arabic version renders it, “how God first promised”; referring to the promises concerning the calling of the Gentiles, which James afterwards confirms by citing a passage out of the prophets to the same purpose: the Syriac version, “how God began to choose out of the Gentiles”: that is, by calling them by his grace; and the Ethiopic version, “how God first had mercy on the Gentiles”; who before had not obtained mercy:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the
Gentiles
James begins with taking notice of Peter’s speech, and agrees to it, and confirms it; for by Simeon is not meant, as some have thought, the Simeon that took Christ in his arms, ( Luke 2:25 ) who had been dead long ago; but Simon Peter, who had spoken before. Simon and Simeon are one and the same name; the former is only a contraction of the latter in the Syriac language; Simeon was his pure Hebrew name, and James speaking to an assembly of Hebrews, uses it; and observes, that he had given a very clear and distinct narrative, how God at the first preaching of the Gospel, quickly after the day of Pentecost, was pleased to look upon the Gentiles, and show favour to them, and visit them in a way of grace and mercy, by sending the Gospel to them, and his Spirit to make it effectual: this was a gracious visit; he came and looked upon them, quickened them, and spoke comfortably to them, and bestowed special favours upon them; the set time for such a visit being come: the Arabic version renders it, “how God first promised”; referring to the promises concerning the calling of the Gentiles, which James afterwards confirms by citing a passage out of the prophets to the same purpose: the Syriac version, “how God began to choose out of the Gentiles”: that is, by calling them by his grace; and the Ethiopic version, “how God first had mercy on the Gentiles”; who before had not obtained mercy:
G
guanophore
Guest
The question sounds more rhetorical to me.
One can also glean from the context that water had been refused to Gentiles, which is why the Lord had to go to great lengths to convince Peter this was His plan.
Then Peter had to go back and pursuade the other Apostles of what had been revealed to him.
It does demonstrate, though, that no matter how boneheaded the heirarchy appointed by Christ can be, He is still able to guide them infallbily.
Is there any human institution that has persisted such a span of time? I think this alone is proof of divine intervention.
Yes, Jesus is THE rock. Peter’s confession of faith is also a rocky statement. And Jesus renamed Simon to Cephas, making him into a rock. None of these can be separated from each other, as Peter’s nature has been grafted into Christ. His statement of faith proceeds from this relationship.
We are all also being built like stones into this house, and find “rockiness” in our confession of faith. We are not separated from Peter either.
B
benhur
Guest
Are those your only two options ? Yes but he didn’t say it your way,and it was much more than rhetorical. It is like saying , “here is what i believe, are you on board also ?” or at most, “here is my example, please follow”.
B
benhur
Guest
It can seem to be, but I would not take away the dignity of those there to be able to disagree or indeed have their say even in agreement.That is, the end result was the letter which went out to all the churches. The letter does not state, " so says Peter and so shall it be". The letter says all are in agreement, all as in the elders/apostles and brethren at Jerusalem. It is very inclusive, and Peter meant it to be so as evidenced by his “question” . It was much more than rhetorical. He used his authority but not in a way suggesting a supreme ruler.
Don’t know. Would have to read it again with that in mind. Off hand I never thought that, for gentiles could be circumcised, become Jewish and then be water baptized, for until then, all Christians were Jews first, I think for the most part. Don’t think anybody refused them baptism before because they had shown no evidence of receiving or believing the gospel message before. Peter’s question was in light of them not being circumcised for they now heard and believed the gospel for the first time.
I like your them"" for it was a collaborative effort with all involved at the council.It does demonstrate, though, that no matter how boneheaded the heirarchy appointed by Christ can be, He is still able to guide them infallbily.
Are you sure you want to call it a human institution as do non-papists. Some would say there has been resistance to it as long as it has been around proving divine guidance.
Thank you for faith statement being a rock . I think some would say the Jesus and Peter are joined, that is similar but not the same, hence the two terminologies of rock/stone to rockmass (petros/petras). Don’t think it is a gender issue for Jesus is referred to as both in other scriptures. Just as a rock/stone on a rockmass are joined, not separated but yet different entities.
Actually I thought most catholics would say the relationship proceeds the faith statement.That is, because of his faith, he is a rock and will be built upon and was given keys. But yes if you mean he has faith because of the Father/Christ suggesting a relationship. etc.
Yes, Peter has authority but more as an example, footsteps to follow.
B
benhur
Guest
We both have no proof but only evidences, the substance of our faith. Never the less your on so let it be. Your (CC’s) evidences have been shown quite strongly and cordially and you would almost convince me, except that the contrary has also been shown in likewise fashion. I am sure you could add a few more as could those contrary wise. Lord willing perhaps tomorrow.
B
benhur
Guest
Yes he did. But as others have said, there is his authority for sure, but more telling is how he exercised it. Was it not with a question ? Is a question really a call as much as a leading by example ? The call is really made by James, signifying that all are in agreement and all stepped in line with the “example”, and how to implement it
Good, as long as one doesn’t say Peter did it all as I have heard some say on other papal threads here.
- Status