Peter

[NotWorthy]

I will go back and look through your posts on the priesthood. It is so extremely different from my understandings now. So which thread or forum or where should I go for the trinity since this is my hardest to swallow !!??

Feel free to start one. That way, your exact question will be dealt with… um, unless someone else hi-jacks it!!!

 

[meaprilrain]

Feel free to start one. That way, your exact question will be dealt with… um, unless someone else hi-jacks it!!!

oh I wondered what that meant !! sorry whoever for the hi jacking. alright I’ll try to start a new one. Thank you for your information

 

[pneuma07]

Here’s the thing. In most of the really significant events detailed in the Gospels we see repetition. It makes sense, considering that Mosaic Law insisted that a thing should be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. But the establishment of Peter as the sole leader of the Church is based on two verses. It only appears in the Gospels once. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe it happened. I believe in the inerrency of scripture. Where my apprehension lies is in building a theology on two verses.

.

Hi Quizling.

       As it has already come out  thanks to a couple of posters

you do not have here to build on a single pericope by a single witness.

Maybe it can be useful summarizing. Besides Matthew you have: John 21 ( which you are already considering)

*15When they had(T) finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, (U) “Simon,(V) son of John,(W) do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed(X) my lambs.” 16He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, (Y) “Tend(Z) my sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him(AA) the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord,(AB) you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed(AC) my sheep. *

To be read together with Luke 22

31And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.”

So you have three evangelists, each pointing to a petrine role, each describing aspects of this task.

Let me add a note on Mark. The only evangelist not giving us a dedicated pericope on this. Who was Mark’s peculiar source ?
Peter. His omission appears to speak for a Peter who was really far from any self-promotion.
So it appears we can confidently rule out that a part, a “petrine school” within the primitive Church, had somehow promoted the cause of his primacy.
Which is pointed to in independent contexts and different ways by any evangelist… but the one depending on Peter himself.

I hope this can help your examination of the matter.

 

[NotWorthy]

Let me add a note on Mark. The only evangelist not giving us a dedicated pericope on this. Who was Mark’s peculiar source ?
Peter. His omission appears to speak for a Peter who was really far from any self-promotion.
So it appears we can confidently rule out that a part, a “petrine school” within the primitive Church, had somehow promoted the cause of his primacy.
Which is pointed to in independent contexts and different ways by any evangelist… but the one depending on Peter himself.

I hope this can help your examination of the matter.

I simply love that!!! It’s so ironic (or maybe its so “fitting” actually) that the most minimal role of Peter in the Gospels comes from Peter himself!!!

But consider this. What would Mark’s Gospel have sounded like if “Pre-Ascension-Peter” was the source of the Gospel?

*"The Sea was angry that day my friend when Jesus walked up. So I walked out on the water to greet Him. Little did He know there was a shark underwater. So I sank down and killed the shark with my own bear hands. Made this necklace out of it, but I sold it to raise money for the poor, or I’d show it to you right now.

Jesus was so very thankful for my saving his life as he lifted me back up from under the water. He just couldn’t thank me enough. Those other idiots in the boat thought I sank on accident. But me and my Lord knows!!!

And then there was the time that I…"*

 

[mercygate]

I will go back and look through your posts on the priesthood. It is so extremely different from my understandings now. So which thread or forum or where should I go for the trinity since this is my hardest to swallow !!??

The Trinity is “harrd to swallow” – it took 300 years for the Church to wrangle this teaching into communicable form. It emerged definitively by bashing up against gnostics, Arians, Nestorians et al., who asserted that Jesus was either not man, not God, God and man pasted together, a spirit who appeared to be man, a man who was infused with the Spirit . . . . This is the primary illustration of how the Holy Spirit works through Christ’s Church to “guide you into all the truth” (Jn 14).

I would approach this doctrine NOT on forums like these, because even the best of us are ham-handed amateurs, but by looking for good basic resources. Something like Augustine’s De Trinitate would be good but it’s a bear of a read. You could start slow with this. With a teaching as complex as the Trinity, it is wise to try to clear your head of whatever is already in it on the subject and just take it AS DEFINED by the Church. Once you have an idea of what the teaching really IS, then you can judge it. But first you have to know it.

The Secret Service does not teach its people to identify counterfit money. They teach them to identify the real thing so that they will know the counterfeit when they come across it. It’s a good way to approach the teachings of the Church.

 

[Pax]

The Trinity is “harrd to swallow” – it took 300 years for the Church to wrangle this teaching into communicable form. It emerged definitively by bashing up against gnostics, Arians, Nestorians et al., who asserted that Jesus was either not man, not God, God and man pasted together, a spirit who appeared to be man, a man who was infused with the Spirit . . . . This is the primary illustration of how the Holy Spirit works through Christ’s Church to “guide you into all the truth” (Jn 14).

I would approach this doctrine NOT on forums like these, because even the best of us are ham-handed amateurs, but by looking for good basic resources. Something like Augustine’s De Trinitate would be good but it’s a bear of a read. You could start slow with this. With a teaching as complex as the Trinity, it is wise to try to clear your head of whatever is already in it on the subject and just take it AS DEFINED by the Church. Once you have an idea of what the teaching really IS, then you can judge it. But first you have to know it.

The Secret Service does not teach its people to identify counterfit money. They teach them to identify the real thing so that they will know the counterfeit when they come across it. It’s a good way to approach the teachings of the Church.

Very good point and suggestion.

 

[Quizling]

Also… If Paul didn’t need to be received into the priesthood…i.e. had his own authority from Christ… then why did he work so hard at getting accepted by the apostles since they all feared him and distrusted him at first?.. Because Jesus instituted the laying on of hands and it was continued by the apostles…

Still studying and exegeting, but this got my attention. I can buy that Paul would have worked hard to get the acceptance of the apostles because of the institute of the laying on of hands, but couldn’t it also have been that he just felt that antagonism between himself and the apostles was contrary to their common purpose, or that he was aware that he couldn’t handle such a mission on his own?

By the way, congratulations to you on your impending child! You truly are blest.

 

[Quizling]

snip
But you say only once is the Papacy discussed in the Gospels? What about John 21? What about Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemene that Peter will turn back and strengthen his brothers after Satan tries to sift through them like wheat? What about the repetitions of Peter’s demonstrations in establishing Law.
snip

Alright, I went back over John 21. Post-crucifixion, the guys go fishing. Perfectly reasonable, considering that it was their vocation before they were called. Jesus, now resurrected, appears on the shore, gives them some fishing tips, and calls them to breakfast. Now the part that has to do with Peter and the Papacy start at verse 15:

John 21:15-19 (ESV)

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

On the one hand I can see where this fits in well with the idea that the Christ was appointing Peter as his sole spokesman. But I think that perspective leaves out some of the context of the situation. For example, when Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, along with Salome, went to the empty tomb, an angel appeared to them and explained that Jesus was no longer there.

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The bit there where it says “his disciples and Peter” is the relevant part in our discussion. The word “and” is sometimes interpreted “especially”. But the word there (καί) is never translated “especially” in any other place in the Bible. It just means “and”, like in “these guys and that other guy”, meaning that the other guy isn’t part of these guys.

Add to that what Jesus had to say to Peter in Luke 22:
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus knew that Peter was going to turn away, obviously. He says “when you have turned again (επιστρεψας), strengthen your brothers”. The word there is usually translated “turn again”, “be converted”, or “return”. Peter left. Once he returned, Jesus spent some one-on-one time with him on the shore of Galilee. He didn’t do so with the others because none of them denied Him.

So I’m still in the same spot. As far as I am able to determine, everything hinges on Peter. I have other misgivings in regard to other teachings of the Church, but if this one thing is true, if Jesus did appoint Peter as the one and only man to carry His authority on the earth, then none of my other doubts mean anything because if this is true, then what Rome says is the way it goes and that is the end of it.

But if this one thing is true, then I have to disregard the priesthood of the believer, the statement that Paul made in 1 Timothy 5 regarding my relationship with Christ and God (5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. ), and a host of other cherished beliefs have to be re-thought.

 

[mercygate]

Alright, I went back over John 21. Post-crucifixion, the guys go fishing. Perfectly reasonable, considering that it was their vocation before they were called. Jesus, now resurrected, appears on the shore, gives them some fishing tips, and calls them to breakfast. Now the part that has to do with Peter and the Papacy start at verse 15:

John 21:15-19 (ESV)

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” 19 (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”

On the one hand I can see where this fits in well with the idea that the Christ was appointing Peter as his sole spokesman. But I think that perspective leaves out some of the context of the situation. For example, when Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, along with Salome, went to the empty tomb, an angel appeared to them and explained that Jesus was no longer there.

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The bit there where it says “his disciples and Peter” is the relevant part in our discussion. The word “and” is sometimes interpreted “especially”. But the word there (καί) is never translated “especially” in any other place in the Bible. It just means “and”, like in “these guys and that other guy”, meaning that the other guy isn’t part of these guys.

Add to that what Jesus had to say to Peter in Luke 22:
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus knew that Peter was going to turn away, obviously. He says “when you have turned again (επιστρεψας), strengthen your brothers”. The word there is usually translated “turn again”, “be converted”, or “return”. Peter left. Once he returned, Jesus spent some one-on-one time with him on the shore of Galilee. He didn’t do so with the others because none of them denied Him.

So I’m still in the same spot. As far as I am able to determine, everything hinges on Peter. I have other misgivings in regard to other teachings of the Church, but if this one thing is true, if Jesus did appoint Peter as the one and only man to carry His authority on the earth, then none of my other doubts mean anything because if this is true, then what Rome says is the way it goes and that is the end of it.

But if this one thing is true, then I have to disregard the priesthood of the believer, the statement that Paul made in 1 Timothy 5 regarding my relationship with Christ and God (5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. ), and a host of other cherished beliefs have to be re-thought.

I came to this through the same door you appear to be walking. But it is important to remember that the centrality of Peter in the Church does not in any way nullify the priesthood of the believer or the unique mediation of Christ. All of that stands and remains essential in the universal Church in which no necessary thing forces out any other necessary thing. It is not EITHER Peter OR the individual Christian but BOTH. Peter becomes the focal point of unity. Works for me.

 

[NotWorthy]

5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

The bit there where it says “his disciples and Peter” is the relevant part in our discussion. The word “and” is sometimes interpreted “especially”. But the word there (καί) is never translated “especially” in any other place in the Bible. It just means “and”, like in “these guys and that other guy”, meaning that the other guy isn’t part of these guys.

Meaning that one guy is singled out and the others are part of a group. From the context of everything else with Peter, it would seem that Peter is singled out as special… such as the numerous times that Peter is singled out. For example, doesn’t Paul say “Peter and the Twelve”. You’ve taken one example and seemingly totally ignored all the other ones.

Add to that what Jesus had to say to Peter in Luke 22:
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus knew that Peter was going to turn away, obviously. He says “when you have turned again (επιστρεψας), strengthen your brothers”. The word there is usually translated “turn again”, “be converted”, or “return”. Peter left. Once he returned, Jesus spent some one-on-one time with him on the shore of Galilee. He didn’t do so with the others because none of them denied Him.

Except that Jesus says that "Satan demanded to have you (plural). But I have prayed for you (singular) that when you return (yes, convert is a good term… Peter did deny Christ) you will strengthen your brothers." You see, the brothers needed strengthening as well. Jesus could have strengthened them Himself, but He allowed Peter to do it. This fits in with the role Peter assumes after the Ascension.

You’ve got to admit that after Peter “converted” as Jesus’ prayer indicated he would, that he turned into the Rock that the Church needed as is evidenced all throughout Acts.

So I’m still in the same spot. As far as I am able to determine, everything hinges on Peter. I have other misgivings in regard to other teachings of the Church, but if this one thing is true, if Jesus did appoint Peter as the one and only man to carry His authority on the earth, then none of my other doubts mean anything because if this is true, then what Rome says is the way it goes and that is the end of it.

Do you agree that the keys given to Peter indicated Authority?

Have you ever wondered at Matthew’s listing of the Apostles? The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. Why is Peter labeled “first”, when the Gospel of John clearly indicates that Peter was not the first Apostle. It would seem that “first” in this case is not chronological, but in order of importance. Also, notice that none of the others are ranked.

Hmmmmm…

But if this one thing is true, then I have to disregard the priesthood of the believer, the statement that Paul made in 1 Timothy 5 regarding my relationship with Christ and God (5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. ), and a host of other cherished beliefs have to be re-thought.

Why does any other mediator between Christ imply that we are bypassing Christ. If I pray to Mary, I am not doing an “end-around”. Because any prayers sent to her, are then sent on to Christ. Mary prays to Christ, not around Him.

In the same way, anyone praying for others (my parents often pray for me) to Christ are still allowing that He is our Mediator to God…

For one to treat someone as a Mediator instead of Christ, which your statement implies, they would have to pray something like this, “Mary, I don’t need Jesus, I need you. So would YOU save me?”

But if I ask Mary to pray for me to our Lord, then how is that not recognizing that Jesus is our Mediator.

 

[Pax]

…
…
But if this one thing is true, then I have to disregard the priesthood of the believer, the statement that Paul made in 1 Timothy 5 regarding my relationship with Christ and God (5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. ), and a host of other cherished beliefs have to be re-thought.

Paul’s statement that there is one mediator between God and men is fully accepted and taught by the Catholic Church. Jesus is the one mediator between God and man in that “only the blood of Jesus” by way of his passion, death, and resurrection provide salvation. Only the sacrifice of Jesus provides redemption, propitiation, and atonement for our sins. No one else’s blood can provide what Christ’s blood provides. Jesus is both God and man. Adam’s sin deserved death. Adam was a finite man sinning against our infinite God. A finite man cannot provide a sacrifice of infinite value to an infinite being. Only Jesus who is God and man can provide the sacrifice of inifinite value and thus satisfy the requirements for salvation. This is the meaning of the term “one mediator between God and man.”

There are many subordinate forms of mediation that God not only permits, but requires. I’ll give some of examples by way of scripture:

Rom 16: 99
Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys.

1 Cor 3:9
For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, [ye are] God’s building.

2 Cor 6:1
As we work together with him, we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain.

3 Jn 1:8
Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we may become co-workers with the truth.

Eph 4:29
Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear.

Rom 15:15-16
I have written to you rather boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable,

Rom 15:18
18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles,

Col 1:7
This you learned from Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf,

I hope this helps.

 

[Quizling]

For example, doesn’t Paul say “Peter and the Twelve”. You’ve taken one example and seemingly totally ignored all the other ones.

Actually, I don’t know where that is. Can you direct me?

Except that Jesus says that "Satan demanded to have you (plural). But I have prayed for you (singular) that when you return (yes, convert is a good term… Peter did deny Christ) you will strengthen your brothers." You see, the brothers needed strengthening as well. Jesus could have strengthened them Himself, but He allowed Peter to do it. This fits in with the role Peter assumes after the Ascension.

The thing is, I don’t see where you get that “you” (σύ) is plural in the first usage, but that the same word is singular in the second usage. But if that were the case, then you are essentially saying that Jesus has told Peter Satan is going to harrass all of them, but He is going to pray for Peter and not the rest. This just doesn’t sound like the way Jesus does things. Since the brothers needed strengthening as well, wouldn’t Jesus have prayed for all of them?

You’ve got to admit that after Peter “converted” as Jesus’ prayer indicated he would, that he turned into the Rock that the Church needed as is evidenced all throughout Acts.

As previously stated, the Church experienced phenominal growth largely thanks to Peter’s willingness to be used as a mass evangelist. Without the increase in numbers, it owuld have been difficult to expand the Church throughout Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.

Do you agree that the keys given to Peter indicated Authority?

Now here’s an interesting thing. The word “you” in Mathew 16:19 isn’t quite the same as the one mentioned above. Instead of (σύ), it’s (σοι), which is rendered “thee” and “thou”, but also “thy house” on occasion, which would make it a better candidate for being plural than (σύ). I’m not building a theology on that one word, I’m just saying I’d like to understand that statement better.

Have you ever wondered at Matthew’s listing of the Apostles? The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. Why is Peter labeled “first”, when the Gospel of John clearly indicates that Peter was not the first Apostle. It would seem that “first” in this case is not chronological, but in order of importance. Also, notice that none of the others are ranked.

Hmmmmm…

Well, look at Matthew 4. The first time Matthew talks about the calling of disciples, it is Simon and Andrew (Matthew 4:18). Next, in verse 21, he calls James and John, in the same order he lists them. I’m not saying that it is proof of anything, I’m just saying that maybe he listed it that way because he remembered it that way. He clearly wasn’t in the loop when the first guys were called, so he has to go on what he has been told.

Why does any other mediator between Christ imply that we are bypassing Christ. If I pray to Mary, I am not doing an “end-around”. Because any prayers sent to her, are then sent on to Christ. Mary prays to Christ, not around Him.

In the same way, anyone praying for others (my parents often pray for me) to Christ are still allowing that He is our Mediator to God…

For one to treat someone as a Mediator instead of Christ, which your statement implies, they would have to pray something like this, “Mary, I don’t need Jesus, I need you. So would YOU save me?”

But if I ask Mary to pray for me to our Lord, then how is that not recognizing that Jesus is our Mediator.

Yeah, I missed it on this one. The statement in question is about the sacrifice of Christ, not the priesthood. I shouldn’t have been so hasty in my statement there.

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, I don’t know where that is. Can you direct me?

Mark 1:36-37 - Simon and those who were with him pursued him and on finding him said, "Everyone is looking for you."

Acts 2:27 - Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?"

Acts 5:29 - But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men.

1 Corinthians 15:- that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

 

[pneuma07]

Add to that what Jesus had to say to Peter in Luke 22:
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus knew that Peter was going to turn away, obviously. He says “when you have turned again (επιστρεψας), strengthen your brothers”. The word there is usually translated “turn again”, “be converted”, or “return”. Peter left. Once he returned, Jesus spent some one-on-one time with him on the shore of Galilee. He didn’t do so with the others because none of them denied Him.

So I’m still in the same spot. As far as I am able to determine, everything hinges on Peter. I have other misgivings in regard to other teachings of the Church, but if this one thing is true, if Jesus did appoint Peter as the one and only man to carry His authority on the earth, then none of my other doubts mean anything because if this is true, then what Rome says is the way it goes and that is the end of it.

QUOTE]

Hi Quizling.

This last paragraph of yours is so great !

I guess we should mainly welcome this consideration of yours, and possibly trying being of some help in details.

One of which could be:

31σιμων σιμων ιδου ο σατανας εξητησατο υμας του σινιασαι ως τον σιτον

32εγω δε εδεηθην περι σου ινα μη εκλιπη η πιστις σου και συ ποτε επιστρεψας στηρισον τους αδελφους σου

This is the Greek of the two verses in Luke 22 we’re dealing with… As we can check, in the second verse the second person is always singular. In the first one what Satan is demanding is υμας, plural, ie the group.

The Lord is telling Peter and the Twelve, in this solemn moment, he has singled out Peter in His praying.
By the force of this prayer and the assistance begged for in it, Peter is to be made equal to the task of strengthening or stabilizing his brothers in the faith. All of them, the Twelve and the other ones, so that Satan can not prevail against the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Lord is telling Peter and the Twelve, in this solemn moment, he has singled out Peter in His praying.
**By the force of this prayer and the assistance begged for in it, Peter is to be made equal to the task of strengthening or stabilizing his brothers in the faith. **All of them, the Twelve and the other ones, so that Satan can not prevail against the Church.

And if you look at the Twelve, Peter is the only one that we see a real major change in. You can see in the various speeches (or sermons?) that Peter gives in early Acts, that Jesus prayer has been most successful.

“The prayers of a righteous man are powerful indeed”!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

I failed to finish replying to this post, sorry about that, and I see that pneuma has replied to Jesus prayer in Luke 22, unless you still have questions on it. But here’s the rest of my reply

As previously stated, the Church experienced phenominal growth largely thanks to Peter’s willingness to be used as a mass evangelist. Without the increase in numbers, it owuld have been difficult to expand the Church throughout Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth.

I have no argument with this. But what does this prove?

Well, look at Matthew 4. The first time Matthew talks about the calling of disciples, it is Simon and Andrew (Matthew 4:18). Next, in verse 21, he calls James and John, in the same order he lists them. I’m not saying that it is proof of anything, I’m just saying that maybe he listed it that way because he remembered it that way. He clearly wasn’t in the loop when the first guys were called, so he has to go on what he has been told.

So, the Holy Spirit mis-guided Matthew’s words so that “those crazy Catholics” would mis-take “Protos” for Prime, instead of chronological? Hmmmmmm… I don’t think that dog hunts.

Yeah, I missed it on this one. The statement in question is about the sacrifice of Christ, not the priesthood. I shouldn’t have been so hasty in my statement there.

No harm, no foul.

 

[Quizling]

…snip…

One of which could be:

31σιμων σιμων ιδου ο σατανας εξητησατο υμας του σινιασαι ως τον σιτον

32εγω δε εδεηθην περι σου ινα μη εκλιπη η πιστις σου και συ ποτε επιστρεψας στηρισον τους αδελφους σου

This is the Greek of the two verses in Luke 22 we’re dealing with… As we can check, in the second verse the second person is always singular. In the first one what Satan is demanding is υμας, plural, ie the group.

The Lord is telling Peter and the Twelve, in this solemn moment, he has singled out Peter in His praying.
By the force of this prayer and the assistance begged for in it, Peter is to be made equal to the task of strengthening or stabilizing his brothers in the faith. All of them, the Twelve and the other ones, so that Satan can not prevail against the Church.

I looked through the Textus Receptus, the Wescott-Hort, and a few others.

You’re right.



Jesus told Peter, if I may be allowed a paraphrase, “Satan has demanded the opportunity to sift all y’all like grain in a seive. However, I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith won’t fail. So when you get back to where you are now, help the others through it as well.”

I don’t get why He would pray for one of them and not all of them. I don’t know why Jesus wouldn’t ask that none of their faith would fail. And I REALLY don’t understand why He chose the one who’s faith appeared to have failed in spite of that prayer. But There are all kinds of things that I don’t understand, like general relativity, the US Tax Code, women in general, and why anyone would buy a Menudo album. But I still have to accept them as facts.

So, the Holy Spirit mis-guided Matthew’s words so that “those crazy Catholics” would mis-take “Protos” for Prime, instead of chronological? Hmmmmmm… I don’t think that dog hunts.

You lost me on that one. Can you put it on the bottom shelf for me?

And now, if you will excuse me, I have to go review what I thought was a perfectly reasonable theology and see what other holes I have to mend. :blackeye:

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus told Peter, if I may be allowed a paraphrase, “Satan has demanded the opportunity to sift all y’all like grain in a seive. However, I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith won’t fail. So when you get back to where you are now, help the others through it as well.”

I don’t get why He would pray for one of them and not all of them. I don’t know why Jesus wouldn’t ask that none of their faith would fail. And I REALLY don’t understand why He chose the one who’s faith appeared to have failed in spite of that prayer. But There are all kinds of things that I don’t understand, like general relativity, the US Tax Code, women in general, and why anyone would buy a Menudo album. But I still have to accept them as facts.

Jesus is showing Peter (and all of us), that even though we will fall; with His Grace, we can become Rocks like Peter, maybe?

Remember, overcoming adversity makes us stronger.

You lost me on that one. Can you put it on the bottom shelf for me?

Peter is labeled “First”, and then the rest of the Apostles are listed. Notice, Judas (as always) is listed last.

Now “first” can either mean Peter was the first of the Apostles to sign on. Or “first” can mean Peter is the most important.

Since John shows that Peter was not the first you hypothesized that maybe Matthew just got confused. I don’t think the Holy Spirit would guide Matthew to make that error, is my point.

 

[mercygate]

I looked through the Textus Receptus, the Wescott-Hort, and a few others.

You’re right.



Jesus told Peter, if I may be allowed a paraphrase, “Satan has demanded the opportunity to sift all y’all like grain in a seive. However, I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith won’t fail. So when you get back to where you are now, help the others through it as well.”

I don’t get why He would pray for one of them and not all of them. I don’t know why Jesus wouldn’t ask that none of their faith would fail. And I REALLY don’t understand why He chose the one who’s faith appeared to have failed in spite of that prayer. But There are all kinds of things that I don’t understand, like general relativity, the US Tax Code, women in general, and why anyone would buy a Menudo album. But I still have to accept them as facts.

You lost me on that one. Can you put it on the bottom shelf for me?

And now, if you will excuse me, I have to go review what I thought was a perfectly reasonable theology and see what other holes I have to mend. :blackeye:

don’t see the y’all/you as a problem of Jesus not taking care of the others. He was simply giving notice that when divisions would arise, there would be ONE place where ALL could turn for “strength.” It seems to be allowing for some dfferences in practice while assuring unity in what cannot be compromised.

 

[guanophore]

So I’m looking into this whole Papacy thing, and I gotta say that some of it makes sense. But some of it doesn’t.

F’rinstance …

The Christ appoints Simon as the authoritative voice of God on Earth.

On what basis hve you mde this conclusion?

But Peter isn’t the authoritative voice in the Scriptures. Paul is. Very little of what we have in writing from Peter could be considered to be Doctrine.

This is an inaccurate conclusion based on several inaccurate premises. The fact that Paul may have written more letters or that more his letters were preserved does not make what he is teaching “more” authoritive" than Peter. Jesus wrote only a few words in the sand!

Paul, on the other hand, sets out the majority of doctrinal statements in the Scriptures.

It is an error to believe that the bulk of Christian doctrine should be based upon the writings of Paul.

As a matter of fact, Paul has to correct Peter on at least one occasion in regard to relations between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.

Correction about hypocritical behavior has occurred since the time that God chose people for Himself.

If you think that our hot tempered Paul never needed any correction you are mistaken. Teaching the Truth about God’s Kingdom does not necessarily equate to impeccability.

So if Peter is the Vicar of Christ, why does God address us primarily through Paul?

They are not separated from one another. All who are in Peter’s boat will hear the correct teaching, and will be protected from error by the charism of infallibility.