D
dronald
Guest
Interesting. I’ve never really considered the implications of this. I would like to know what you take from this?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
My bad. It was John 1:42, and it is earlier than Mt. 16.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Peter calls himself Simon Peter in 2 Peter 1:1. There were numerous times when he was called Simon AFTER the so-called name change in Matthew 16.
The whole Peter-Petra-Petros thing is overblown.
If there IS a royal steward, it is the Holy Spirit, NOT a man. Jesus sent Him while He was away.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Acts 10 is another place - it seems like Peter was just another name he used. “Simon who is called Peter” - not Peter alone.
In contrast, Paul is Saul consistently up to one place, then he is Paul ever after.
Y
YADA
Guest
And this is just a grasping at straws … All of the Gospels were written after the fact … so when the Gospels were written Jesus had already renamed Peter and given him the “keys” that signified Peter’s new role as the royal steward in the restored and perpetual Davidic Kingdom.
The argument that the Royal Steward is the Holy Spirit makes as much sense as those who state that Jesus is the Royal Steward … You do not demote God from King to Steward … at least I never would … Have you read the passage in Isaiah about Eliakim?
The use of Simon, Simon Peter and Peter all found in the Scriptures is to clarify the person of Peter …
The early references just identify that the calling of this fisherman Simon is the same person who became Peter …
Saul and Paul are Jewish/Roman equivalents … Jesus [nor God nor Holy Spirit] renamed Paul … Saul was a persecutor of the Church … and viewed less then positively by the Jews and Jewish Chrisitans - thus because Paul’s main ministry focus was with the gentile community and because Paul was also a Roman citizen - - he used the Roman form of his name … there is no equivalence between a God originated name change and Paul’s name change from Saul
T
Tomyris
Guest
More than you have, I think. It will be removed suddenly. Are you willing to appropriate that with your steward?
And remained Simon. Witness 2 Peter: he called himself ‘Simon Peter’, using both names. Abraham was no longer Abram after being renamed, but Simon was still Simon. Not straws, YADA. Steel cables founded in truth, irrefutable light.
Straws.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I finished a series of seminars that went on for four months.
Either you accept Church history or you don’t. It certainly made sense to us that Simon Peter was named Cephus, Pedra (Greek for person), by Christ…and it is clearly stated to head His Church.
If you have two visible heads, then you toss dice to decide which one you want to follow today…so you are still in the driver seat…
Either you accept Church history or you don’t. It certainly made sense to us that Simon Peter was named Cephus, Pedra (Greek for person), by Christ…and it is clearly stated to head His Church.
If you have two visible heads, then you toss dice to decide which one you want to follow today…so you are still in the driver seat…
P
PRmerger
Guest
As the steward is subservient to the Master, it is supremely inaccurate to assert that the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Godhead, would be the royal steward.
B
benhur
Guest
One word , conditional. He could walk upon water, then sink like a rock . He could proclaim the divinest of revelations then say the most carnal thing. You love him when he was a right on “rock”, and when he exercised the keys rightly.
Y
YADA
Guest
I doubt that greatly … However, I certainly understand it more fully IMHO …
I trust that the restored Davidic Kingdom will not end and is far more perfected then the old - our King will not change as it did in the earlier Davidic Kingdom, Yes? I assume you don’t believe that Jesus will ever be replaced on the throne of David. … I also trust in Jesus’ promise that His Church - that He founded and built upon the Rock that was Simon - whom Jesus Himself renamed Peter [and Peter’s successors] will prevail by the grace of God … Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail over the Church … I trust Jesus and take Hos Word over yours … How and when the Holy Spirit work to make that happen - a mystery.
Yours are straws … Saul was not renamed by Jesus … Simon was …Simon was the Rock upon which Jesus built His [Jesus’] Church … Rock was more then just a name change - its an office … that is the cable of truth … that Abram was never again referred after his name change does not negate the fact that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter … Paul nor any of the other Apostles received the “Keys” which signify a specific Authoritative Office … though All the Apostles did receive authoritative offices - and the ability to bind and loose sins … Only Peter received the authority to bind and loose the very Gates of Heaven … you can play it down and pick at it all you want …
Jesus did not give Himself the Keys [and argument some Protestants make] He possesses the Master Set and one does not hand something they posses to themselves - that is non sense
Jesus did not hand the Keys over to a Large Boulder [and argument some Protestants make] an inanimate object has no power to accept nor utilize a tool like keys … the keys could rest upon the boulder but the a boulder does not have any capacity to safeguard nor wield keys. A boulder cannot hold an office - nor bind and loose.
Jesus did not hand the keys to a profession of faith [and argument some Protestants make] as words spoken have no capacity to accept, utilize or possess “keys”. A profession of faith cannot hold an office - nor bind and loose.
B
benhur
Guest
You go girl. Congrats Kathleen, I do recall your posting of it moons ago.
One thing is history, and another is what you make of it, and then how to teach it.
Your statement above is quite universal to most of us. Peter certainly was a, maybe the leader of the twelve. But what does that mean? First amongst equals covers it also, for the same history.
. Some say that is true with visible or invisible heads. Jesus/Holy Spirit is in the driver seat and Peter was first amongst the twelve. History also shows further “heads”, as in 3-5 patriarchs.
The operation of consensus shows equality of offices, not just “humble” shepherding.
B
benhur
Guest
Well then did Jesus have a royal steward during His 3 plus year ministry ?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Why should he?
S
stewstew03
Guest
I’m confused. Are you arguing that Jesus did not, in fact, change Peter’s name (from Simon to Peter)?
B
benhur
Guest
Right, why would Jesus need a royal steward whilst with us ?
Then why should His equal in the Godhead as you point out ,The Holy Spirit, need one whilst with us ?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I didn’t assert that at all ben.
Jesus did have a royal steward. See Matthew 16:18.
He just didn’t HAVE to have one during his 3 year ministry.
Because without one you have the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming to have the Holy Spirit, yet offering different interpretations of the very same Bible verses. Sometimes even contrary interpretations!
And that’s why we need a steward with us today.
T
Tomyris
Guest
Not a good reason. Sorry. I guess I didn’t make it clear that I reject the whole idea of a ‘royal steward’ - a hierarchy was not mandated in the beginning. It’s as if the argument about who the greatest disciple was has been carried into the present day. Jesus had something else in mind.I didn’t assert that at all ben.
Jesus did have a royal steward. See Matthew 16:18.
He just didn’t HAVE to have one during his 3 year ministry.
Because without one you have the obscenity of tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming to have the Holy Spirit, yet offering different interpretations of the very same Bible verses. Sometimes even contrary interpretations!
And that’s why we need a steward with us today.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Hi Benhur…if we are not participating, if we are not accessing Church History and have prior experience of communion, and of purpose and intent…this communal ‘knowing’ of each other…then it cannot make sense.
It is no issue for me if the title Bishop of Rome, which Peter really never was, rather solely co-founder and martyr with Paul, bishops chosen successors, and an unbroken line where the title pope was added…because the Church has grown and become more complex.
Paul very clearly went to Peter to consult with him to make sure he understood all before beginning his mission, And later Paul confronted Peter, and ended saying, “Peter said I was right”, again acquiescing leadership to Peter.
Peter was named over 180 times in Scripture over all other apostles.
and going back…when the Byzantine Church developed along side the imperial court, whereas Peter and Paul went to Rome solely for the Church…when there was a dispute…the Church of Rome would always say we are to intend for the Church alone - minus the imperial.
You can go on and on and on and on disputing and doubting…but for us…we are in this communion and unity that goes on and on and on…our focus…Psalm 95…the first prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours…The Lord our Rock and salvation amidst the turbulence and up and down of life…
There is this continuity that once you board the Barq of Peter…the peace you receive is supernatural and divine…you cannot go anywhere else.
My finale to the course was unfortunately attending the funeral of my Lutheran client…I had to finish the last session and then drive from there to the funeral.
I had to skip the second part of the seminar. But what I got out of it is that…when we speak of papal infallibility…the popes speak to us today through letters. The last part was on the impact of “Humane Vitae”, ‘tidal wave’ over Church…which really proved P Paul VI right on free sex impact on our society we are seeing today…so I left for the funeral.
They greeted me coming in, the pastor went back to show me he had saved his homily in paper form regarding my client who was a great steward to them, the assistant pastor gave me a most sincere and thoughtful hug and visits with the other members of the congregation…I felt I was so blessed being with my Lutheran brethren…and yes, I told them I wish we were all one at one table…the usual.
It is no issue for me if the title Bishop of Rome, which Peter really never was, rather solely co-founder and martyr with Paul, bishops chosen successors, and an unbroken line where the title pope was added…because the Church has grown and become more complex.
Paul very clearly went to Peter to consult with him to make sure he understood all before beginning his mission, And later Paul confronted Peter, and ended saying, “Peter said I was right”, again acquiescing leadership to Peter.
Peter was named over 180 times in Scripture over all other apostles.
and going back…when the Byzantine Church developed along side the imperial court, whereas Peter and Paul went to Rome solely for the Church…when there was a dispute…the Church of Rome would always say we are to intend for the Church alone - minus the imperial.
You can go on and on and on and on disputing and doubting…but for us…we are in this communion and unity that goes on and on and on…our focus…Psalm 95…the first prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours…The Lord our Rock and salvation amidst the turbulence and up and down of life…
There is this continuity that once you board the Barq of Peter…the peace you receive is supernatural and divine…you cannot go anywhere else.
My finale to the course was unfortunately attending the funeral of my Lutheran client…I had to finish the last session and then drive from there to the funeral.
I had to skip the second part of the seminar. But what I got out of it is that…when we speak of papal infallibility…the popes speak to us today through letters. The last part was on the impact of “Humane Vitae”, ‘tidal wave’ over Church…which really proved P Paul VI right on free sex impact on our society we are seeing today…so I left for the funeral.
They greeted me coming in, the pastor went back to show me he had saved his homily in paper form regarding my client who was a great steward to them, the assistant pastor gave me a most sincere and thoughtful hug and visits with the other members of the congregation…I felt I was so blessed being with my Lutheran brethren…and yes, I told them I wish we were all one at one table…the usual.
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Hi. Can you direct me to where the early Church brought up the point that a hierarchy was rejected? Pls provide a link. Thanks in advance.
MJ
P
pablope
Guest
Well…then can you explain the why Constantinople wanted to overtake Rome in eminennce in early church history?
- Status