Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[mtr01]

Thomas2:

Ummmmm…it seems this thread is getting to be too much an attempt to win an argument rather than working together to save souls. Or is it me?

I asked if anyone participating in this thread has a clue how important it is that God Himself gave Simon a new name…that fact is reeeeeeeallllly important in gaining understanding of the role God had in mind for Peter from that moment in history on…

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

And not just any name, he’s giving Simon a name that in the Old Testament referred exclusively to God himself. If that’s not giving Simon a special honor, I don’t know what is. I think that to overlook the above is to miss the point…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Luke 22
:22
The son of man goes on his way…
:28
You are the men who have kept to my side in my hours of trial:and, as my father has allotted a kingdom to me, so I allot to you a place to eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; you shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
…
:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, Satan has claimed power over you all, so that he can sift you like wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; when after a while you have come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.

---

It is to Peter that Jesus levels a very specific threat:
Either be subordinate and allow me to wash your feet, or you will
have no part in me.

This is not merely an authority of example.
It is a threat of excommunication.
I wish to be clear, Jesus claims authority over Peter.
His example includes the authority to rule over Peter while also doing him service.

Gentile lords were not known for doing acts of service to other Gentile lords. Nor did they claim to be beneficial to these lords.
The title benefactor is related to the Gentile Lords giving their soldiers land (benifices). It was a furthur boast of their power.

Jesus said that his apostles would sit on twelve thrones and Judge. Judges are a traditional form of rulership in Israel.
Therefore, It is clear Jesus was granting rulership to his apostles. No one forced jesus to use the expression of a throne.

Notice, also, even in the office of servitude Jesus tells only Simon that he will (future) be the support of his bretheren. Simon will be the chief servant, and therefore the one to take Jesus’ place.

This also makes Peter, the servant of the servants of christ.

;-------------------------

The context of the slapping of the cheek, Mt. 5, is the not giving resistance to injury. In the whole list of examples, the injured party gives MORE to the aggressor than the aggressor wanted.
The person cited, has already had one cheek slapped, and they are to turn the other cheek – which would expose it to violence too. I cant see that turning the cheek would stop an angry superior from doing violence to it.
If the setting does include a superior, then even if a superior were to commit the wrong, Jesus is saying submit to it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Also, Gentile lords did not pretend to have authority,
they had it.

 

[Myhrr]

Huiou Theou:

Also, Gentile lords did not pretend to have authority,
they had it.

It’s still a pretence to superiority which Christ taught against.

Christ was specific, the Apostles were squabbling among themselves as to who was the greatest among them, Christ said they were not to be as the Gentile lords exercising authority over another. This applied to Peter also and no-where in Holy Scripture or in the organisation of the early Church is Peter ever thought of as having authority *over the other Apostles. *He was prominent in the Church leadership for teaching, he had gone through the mill of denial and survived, he was strong in his faith. This is what Jesus referred to when he asked him three times if he loved him, it’s love that understands Christ.

The RCC also seems to ignore that there were other Apostles of the Church, and these included the women who taught and baptised. St Mary Magdalene Equal-to-the-Apostles was in Rome before Paul ever got there, he names her in his letter to the Romans.

Anyway, Paul ordained the first bishop of Rome, Linus, so Rome’s claim to sole authority of Peter is not built on the rock of history or logic.

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:
So, what to you think Our Lord meant when he said to Peter “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom and what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven”? It is not the least bit ambiguous. The plain meaning is clear.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Myhrr:

It’s still a pretence to superiority which Christ taught against.

Yes, but that does not exclude real superiority.
The RCC position is that Peter was given this authority.
He did not take it.

Christ said they were not to be as the Gentile lords exercising authority over another.

That is true, but it is qualified.
Jesus is saying they should not exercise their authority by building up armies (hence the benifices).
The only way to gain in power as a Gentile lord was to build up greater armies with which to suppress the other lords.
However, Jesus does show by example that those in higher authority may excommunicate others.

He was prominent in the Church leadership for teaching, he had gone through the mill of denial and survived, he was strong in his faith.

He had not gone through the mill of denial at the point Christ taught his ‘canon’.

This is what Jesus referred to when he asked him three times if he loved him, it’s love that understands Christ.

The three times Jesus asks the question points back to the three denials Peter made of Jesus.
What Jesus referrs to in the three times Peter says he loves him, is that Peter’s love must consist in feeding Jesus’ flock.
Feed my lambs, Feed my Yearlings, Feed my Sheep.
But JESUS is the shepherd, if Jesus meant there to be no visible head, he had no reason to put Peter in his place pasturing the enitire flock from youngest to oldest.
( Least to Greatest ).
Peter is the Greatest, and Jesus is commanding him to be so.

The RCC also seems to ignore that there were other Apostles of the Church, and these included the women who taught and baptised. St Mary Magdalene Equal-to-the-Apostles was in Rome before Paul ever got there, he names her in his letter to the Romans.

Anyway, Paul ordained the first bishop of Rome, Linus, so Rome’s claim to sole authority of Peter is not built on the rock of history or logic.

Although Mary Magdaline may have been sent (apostle) , she was not one of the twelve (12) which is the authority structure of Jesus’ church. The term apostle is ambiguous.
Mary was not a bishop.
Nor is there any credible evidence that she baptized anyone.

It irrelivant who ordained the first bishop of Rome, It is the office of Peter, not the sole person, which is defended here.
It is totally irrelivant who ordained the succeeding bishop of Rome – the question is who succeeds Peter as eldest of the bishops.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There is something which is being overlooked in the squabbles of the twelve. Jesus gave his favor to Peter, James, and John.
These three accompanied him in the Garden, on the mount of transfiguration. Etc. John is known from tradition to have been the youngest, and Peter is considered the oldest.

In none of the squabbles can it be shown that Peter initiated it.
In the passage from Mark, it is James and John who are trying to get into the position of highest honor and lowest.

To sit on the right and the left at table was to have the greatest and least positions. They were totally cutting off Peter.
Is it any surprise that Peter became indignant?
It was his right by age, and by privelege of Jesus.

In the other passage, the squabble is precipitated by reference of the betrayal of the man ‘next’ to Jesus.
Is it the one on the right or the left, is a possibility.
Again, Peter is being accused of betraying Jesus for the squabble to erupt again (not only Judas).
This is confirmed by the passage which follows where Jesus tells Peter he will deny him three times.
But notice what FOLLOWS the prophecy of denial.

… And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, Satan has claimed power over you all, so that he can sift you like wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; when after a while you have come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.

It was always the junior members who were trying to take Peter’s position that was the source of the squabbles.
Jesus’ reprimand was aimed toward James and John, and that they were an example for the rest of the apostles.

The lesson is to be happy with the station Jesus has granted, whether Least or Greatest.
The lesser should not aspire to usurp the greater.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

bump