# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

        thanks for the exposition.

i don’t think we should make that inference just the same Soc, if we knew:

• Petie’s essay was an exceptional one and/or

• we know the  gold star is regularly  given  to one pupil  after another, not many at the same time    and /or

• Petie, and only Petie, even received a very particular nickname from the teacher
  related to his present and future behavior and role and/or

• Petie was charged by the teacher to take care of the other pupils, including those with A+,  if the teacher were  to leave.......

I hope this can help

Bless you
P7

P7:

Extremely good points! I’d say that, given the classroom scenario of little Petie and his classmates, what we do NOT know is:

1. 
   *]whether Petie’s **essay **was better than the others, or
   *]whether the **gold star **is given to everyone who gets an A+, or only to one who is the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether receiving such a nick name has anything to do with Petie being the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether Petie was the **only student **given the task of tutoring the other students.
   
   By way of analogy i’d say the same of Peter. I do NOT know:
   
   1. 
      *]whether Peter’s **conduct **was any better than the others and more deserving of such a reward (for one might say that John, who was brave enough to risk arrest by standing at Jesus’ cross, was a better man than Peter, who coward behind closed doors and wept like a child when Christ needed him most), or
      *]whether the Keys to the Kingdom are given only to Peter (for Christ was speaking only to him when He also bestowed the authority to bind and loose, but this authority belongs to all of the Apostles and not only Peter), or
      *]whether receiving such an **alias **has anything to do with Peter being Jesus’ favored Apostle (for Jesus called James and his brother John the Sons of Thunder as a testimony of their zeal and bravery), or
      *]whether Peter was the only Apostle given the task of caring for other Christians (for, it seems to me, caring for Jesus’ sheep is not only the job of Peter, but also the job of EVERY Apostle, AND every Christian, to boot)!
      
      So perhaps you can appreciate why i find Christ’s words inconclusive? He might possibly be giving Peter authority that the other 10 (i.e., the 11 minus Judas) did not have. Then again, He might not. Please explain–if you know–how you know the truth about (1), (2), (3) and (4).

 

[paul_c]

P7:

Extremely good points! I’d say that, given the classroom scenario of little Petie and his classmates, what we do NOT know is:

1. 
   *]whether Petie’s essay was better than the others, or
   *]whether the gold star is given to everyone who gets an A+, or only to one who is the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether receiving such a nick name has anything to do with Petie being the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether Petie was the only one given the task of tutoring the other students.
   
   By way of analogy i’d say the same of Peter. I do NOT know:
   
   1. 
      *]whether Peter’s conduct was better than the others (one might say that John, who was brave enough to risk arrest by visiting Jesus at the cross, was a better man than Peter, who coward behind closed doors and wept like a child when Christ needed him most), or
      *]whether the Keys to the Kingdom are given only to him (for Christ was speaking only to Him when He also bestowed the authority to bind and loose), or
      *]whether receiving such a nick name has anything to do with Peter being Jesus’ favored Apostle (for Jesus called James and his brother John the Sons of Thunder as a testimony of their zeal and bravery), or
      *]whether Peter was the only Apostle given the task of caring for other Christians (for it seems to me caring for the sheep is not just the job of Peter, but the job of every Apostle, and every Christian to boot)!
      
      So perhaps you can appreciate why i find Christ’s words inconclusive? He might possibly be giving Peter authority that the other 10 (i.e., the 11 minus Judas) did not have. Then again, He might not. Please explain–if you know–how you know the truth about (1), (2), (3) and (4).

1. 1. 
      Socrates, this is arguing for the sake of arguing. Jesus clearly was speaking to Peter in the three accounts discussed: Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21. Trying to make it sound like he was speaking to all the apostles, when he was not is simply twisting scripture to support your own thesis. This is not finding the truth, It is creating an alternative truth, since we know there is only one truth. The Alternative truth is by definition, a lie.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates, this is arguing for the sake of arguing. Jesus clearly was speaking to Peter in the three accounts discussed: Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21. Trying to make it sound like he was speaking to all the apostles, when he was not is simply twisting scripture to support your own thesis. This is not finding the truth, It is creating an alternative truth, since we know there is only one truth. The Alternative truth is by definition, a lie.

First, i should say that i appreciate your rebuke. If i’m making unholy pretzels out of the Sacred Scripture, you will be doing me a service by showing me my error. And i shall love you for that!

Second, if i’m making pretzels, please understand that it’s not intentional. I’m trying to be as unbiased and logical as i know how.

Third, i’m not making arguments, i’m responding to them. P7 explains why he believes Peter (for he and i understand that Petie is a metaphor for Peter) had a position of authority that the other Apostles did not have. I’m merely pointing out why i don’t yet find his reasons to believe convincing.

Fourth, i’m speaking to P7. Didn’t your mother teach you it is rude to interrupt?

Fifth, if you must butt in, i won’t be offended, as long as P7 is not.

Sixth, rather than resorting to attacks on my character, why not consider what i have to say? As you told me, even someone with a bad character can speak a good truth. If my reasons for doubting P7’s reasons are not valid, please tell my where my reasoning is flawed. As Jesus said:“If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

(John 18:23)
Seventh, if you can find nothing untrue about my reasons for doubting P7’s reasons, then why should i not think that my reasons are valid and my doubts are justified?

 

[Thing]

P7:

By way of analogy i’d say the same of Peter. I do NOT know:

1. 
   *]whether Peter’s **conduct **was any better than the others and more deserving of such a reward (for one might say that John, who was brave enough to risk arrest by standing at Jesus’ cross, was a better man than Peter, who coward behind closed doors and wept like a child when Christ needed him most), or

1. 
   Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.
   

   *]whether the Keys to the Kingdom are given only to Peter (for Christ was speaking only to him when He also bestowed the authority to bind and loose, but this authority belongs to all of the Apostles and not only Peter), or

   Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give **to thee ****the keys **of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever **thou **shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
   

   *]whether receiving such an **alias **has anything to do with Peter being Jesus’ favored Apostle (for Jesus called James and his brother John the Sons of Thunder as a testimony of their zeal and bravery), or

   You are Peter and on this Peter I will build My church.
   You are rock and on this rock I will build My church.
   You are son of thunder and on this son of thunder I will build My church.
   

   *]whether Peter was the only Apostle given the task of caring for other Christians (for, it seems to me, caring for Jesus’ sheep is not only the job of Peter, but also the job of EVERY Apostle, AND every Christian, to boot)!

   15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
   

   So perhaps you can appreciate why i find Christ’s words inconclusive? He might possibly be giving Peter authority that the other 10 (i.e., the 11 minus Judas) did not have. Then again, He might not. Please explain–if you know–how you know the truth about (1), (2), (3) and (4).

 

[paul_c]

First, i should say that i appreciate your rebuke. If i’m making unholy pretzels out of the Sacred Scripture, you will be doing me a service by showing me my error. And i shall love you for that!

Second, if i’m making pretzels, please understand that it’s not intentional. I’m trying to be as unbiased and logical as i know how.

Third, i’m not making arguments, i’m responding to them. P7 explains why he believes Peter (for he and i understand that Petie is a metaphor for Peter) had a position of authority that the other Apostles did not have. I’m merely pointing out why i don’t yet find his reasons to believe convincing.

Fourth, i’m speaking to P7. Didn’t your mother teach you it is rude to interrupt?

Fifth, if you must butt in, i won’t be offended, as long as P7 is not.

Sixth, rather than resorting to attacks on my character, why not consider what i have to say? As you told me, even someone with a bad character can speak a good truth. If my reasons for doubting P7’s reasons are not valid, please tell my where my reasoning is flawed. As Jesus said:“If I said something wrong, testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

(John 18:23)
Seventh, if you can find nothing untrue about my reasons for doubting P7’s reasons, then why should i not think that my reasons are valid and my doubts are justified?

I’m not attacking you or your character. Merely your argument. We’ve been through this for thousands of posts. Thing shows you very clearly in the preceeding post how Jesus is talking to Peter and to Peter alone. Why do you keep trying to extend it to consider others?

As for butting in, this is a public forum for all to comment. If you could only speak when spoken to, it wouldn’t be much of a forum, would it? There is a PM function for private discussion, though.

 

[utunumsint]

Hi Soc,

I wish I had more time on my hands to help you out, but I’m swamped!!

Anyway, about the keys, I found this quote from Origen.

1. THE POWER TO BIND ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN.
   But to me it seems that, to the case of him who after being thrice admonished was adjudged to be as the Gentile and the publican, it is fitly subjoined, “Verily, I say unto you,”–namely, to those who have judged any one to be as the Gentile and the publican,–“and what things soever ye shall bind on the earth,”(6) etc.; for with justice has he, who has thrice admonished and not been heard, bound him who is judged to be as a Gentile
   and a publican; wherefore, when such an one is bound and condemned by one of this character, he remains bound, as no one of those in heaven overturns the judgment of the man who bound him. And, in like manner, he who was admonished once for all, and did things worthy of being gained, having been set free by the admonition of the man who gained him, and no longer bound by the cords of his own sins,(7) for which he was admonished, shall be adjudged to have been set free by those in heaven. Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven.

So here Origen is talking about binding and loosing in terms to the two levels one must go to before going the third level, which is the church. In a sense, all of these people have the same binding and loosing function as Peter.

Mathew 18

Level 1 of binding and loosing authority

11 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.

Level 2 of Binding and Loosing Authority

13 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

Level 3 of Binding and Loosing Authority

If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
15 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Level 4 Origen goes on to explain a fourth level belonging to Peter alone.

But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,” has been especially set before the words, “And what things soever ye shall bind on earth,” etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things aid to Peter, compared with the second class.

The second clase being Levels 1 through 3. So based on this, Peter sits at a fourth level above the three previously mentioned because of the Keys given to him.

I’ll see if I can find anything else.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Just to add an additional clarifying point to the previous post. Origen would say that all people have the binding and loosing authority, and all people have the keys to a certain extent. But there are different degrees of such authority.

So in our context, I, or any other lay person resides at level 1.

A group of lay people resides at level 2,

My parish priest, or bishop resides at level 3 (Or perhaps 3.a and 3.b),

And the cardinals and pope resides at level 4 (Or perhaps 4.a and 4.b).

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

Extremely good points!
…
By way of analogy i’d say the same of Peter. I do NOT know:

1. 
   *]whether Peter’s **conduct **was any better than the others and more deserving of such a reward (for one might say that John, who was brave enough to risk arrest by standing at Jesus’ cross, was a better man than Peter, who coward behind closed doors and wept like a child when Christ needed him most), or
   *]whether the Keys to the Kingdom are given only to Peter (for Christ was speaking only to him when He also bestowed the authority to bind and loose, but this authority belongs to all of the Apostles and not only Peter), or
   *]whether receiving such an **alias **has anything to do with Peter being Jesus’ favored Apostle (for Jesus called James and his brother John the Sons of Thunder as a testimony of their zeal and bravery), or
   *]whether Peter was the only Apostle given the task of caring for other Christians (for, it seems to me, caring for Jesus’ sheep is not only the job of Peter, but also the job of EVERY Apostle, AND every Christian, to boot)!
   
   So perhaps you can appreciate why i find Christ’s words inconclusive? He might possibly be giving Peter authority that the other 10 (i.e., the 11 minus Judas) did not have. Then again, He might not. Please explain–if you know–how you know the truth about (1), (2), (3) and (4).

1. 
   Dear Soc,
   

             I hope I  can appreciate  why you find Christ's words inconclusive and can  have sufficient empathy.

   I’m going to briefly outline something that i guess I know, and something i do not, about (1) to (4), as per your kind request.
   1. The essay which was awarded the gold star was:
   “Who do you say I am?”
   
   16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,** the Son of the living God.”
   
   That was his Nobel prize discovery, achieved not by supposition, but by revelation.
   The Teacher appeared to consider this essay exceptional.
   a) let’s say you tell me. “I trust you, I’m giving you the keys of my house. And I’m going to ratify any decision of yours, P7, on matter X. " Then you tell a group of colleagues of mine: " If you guys reach a decision on matter X, I’ll be with you” .
   Are you by this second declaration giving the keys of your house to each of them ?
   
   b) The prime minister of the davidic King, keeper of the keys, was one.
   we saw that Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (“B J.” i, 5, “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind”
   Shall we suppose, Soc, that every pharisee had the queen’s keys ?
   a) i do not know any pun where the word Boanerges is used to signify ( or seems to signify, if you prefer) Jesus is going to build His Church specifically on them.
   
   b)
   It has been reminded in this thread too that the term rock is associated with truth and the divinity. IMHO Jesus associates this man to Himself in an unparalleled way.
   
   *“Christ is the Rock, …and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistency of firm faith.” *(St. Ambrose). What is your impression about these words ?
   a) “feeding the sheep”, as in John 21, was a scriptural metaphor for “governing people”.
   Which is distinct from “helping each other charitably”.
   IMHO we should not then read here " be among those who help each other" but “govern my flock, my Church”.
   
   b)
   At the Last Supper you remember Simon was manifestly singled out by the Lord, and given the task to confirm, strengthen his brothers.
   
   I hope this can help.
   
   Bless you
   P7.**

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.

Thing:

Good to hear from you again!

Yes, i understand that Peter confirmed his love for Christ. But i was wondering whether Peter was better than the other Apostles. It seems to me that the other Apostles loved Christ, too (except, of course, for Judas). And neither Peter nor Christ said that Peter loved Him more than the others. I can give many passages of Sacred Scripture that demonstrate the love the other Apostles had for Jesus. Can you give even one that proves Peter’s love for Christ surpassed their own?

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give **to thee ****the keys **of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever **thou **shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thank you, Thing. Since the authority to bind and loose was also given to the other Apostles by Christ, then how do you know the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were not also given to the other Apostles?

You are Peter and on this Peter I will build My church.
You are rock and on this rock I will build My church.
You are son of thunder and on this son of thunder I will build My church.

Yes, Thing, i thank you for trying to help. It’s unclear whether the rock on which Christ would build His church is Peter himself, or the truth that Peter spoke (that is, the truth that Jesus was the Son of God). In fact, the Early Church Fathers disagreed among themselves as to what Jesus meant–some believing He was speaking of Peter and some believing He was speaking of Peter’s profession of faith. If those wise men could not agree, perhaps both views have merit.

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

Do Jesus’ words, “lovest thou me more than these” mean this?
a. “Do you love me more than they love me?”

or this?
b. “Do you love me more than you love them?”

My thought is that (b) is the better answer, for if Peter believed (a) he would be showing himself to have the sin of pride, wouldn’t he?

These are the questions i’ve been asking all along, but i’m glad to have you along! For perhaps you will have answers that the others don’t.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m not attacking you or your character. Merely your argument.

My thought is that accusing someone of twisting scripture is an attack on that person’s character, for it implies malicious intent. However, if you did not intend to accuse me of intentional twisting, but think i was twisting unintentionally, then i stand corrected. If you believe my reasons for doubting what P7 said is true, please explain why. Telling me my reasons are invalid because i’m twisting scripture isn’t helpful. Please be more specific. Please explain exactly what is wrong with my reasoning and why it is wrong.

We’ve been through this for thousands of posts.

Yes, and if it takes a thousand more, so be it. I’m not concerned whether our words are many or few, so long as all good reasons to doubt the truth are removed. The fact that i’m asking the same questions demonstrates that i still don’t have the answers to alleviate my doubts.

Thing shows you very clearly in the preceeding post how Jesus is talking to Peter and to Peter alone. Why do you keep trying to extend it to consider others?

Please read my reply to Thing’s post and you will see why i still have questions that remain unanswered. If you have the answers, please let me know.

As for butting in, this is a public forum for all to comment. If you could only speak when spoken to, it wouldn’t be much of a forum, would it? There is a PM function for private discussion, though.

I wasn’t being serious. Please forgive my poor attempt at humor.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Just to add an additional clarifying point to the previous post. Origen would say that all people have the binding and loosing authority, and all people have the keys to a certain extent. But there are different degrees of such authority.

So in our context, I, or any other lay person resides at level 1.

A group of lay people resides at level 2,

My parish priest, or bishop resides at level 3 (Or perhaps 3.a and 3.b),

And the cardinals and pope resides at level 4 (Or perhaps 4.a and 4.b).

God bless,
Ut

Ut

Thanks for the help and for taking the time to quote one of the Early Church Fathers (i have much to learn from them)!

Yes, i think you might be correct about Origin’s understanding of Sacred Scripture. But please notice how Origin himself qualifies this understanding. In the quote you provided, he begins by saying this: But to me it seems that…

Now, when i start a sentence with the words “It seems to me,” then what i mean is that i have an opinion that might be true (or might even be likely to be true) but i’m in no way certain that what i’m saying is actually true. In other words, Origin was giving his opinion, and not a direct revelation from God. If he was posting this on a forum, he would likely begin with the acronym “IMHO;” don’t you think?

That is not to say that you or i cannot trust Origin’s opinion. That only means that Origin himself did not completely trust (or was not certain) that what he said was true. We find the same thing, at times, with the biblical authors. For example, Paul writes this:To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

(1 Corinthians 7:12)
Here, Paul gives his sincere opinion, but he sincerely admits it is his own, and not a direct revelation from God. Origin’s words that you quoted have the same intention, i believe. Since he is giving only his opinion, i cannot be certain that he is certain that what he says is true. Can you?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

          I hope I  can appreciate  why you find Christ's words inconclusive and can  have sufficient empathy.

You’ve demonstrated that by your gentleness and respect. Peter himself would be proud! And i am certainly appreciative of your patience.

I’m going to briefly outline something that i guess I know, and something i do not, about (1) to (4), as per your kind request.

1. The essay which was awarded the gold star was:

“Who do you say I am?”

16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,** the Son of the living God.”

That was his Nobel prize discovery, achieved not by supposition, but by revelation.
The Teacher appeared to consider this essay exceptional.
**

I cannot argue with that. Peter was certainly the first of the Apostles to realize Jesus was the Son of God (or at least the first to admit the realization).


pneuma07;5754414:

a) let’s say you tell me. “I trust you, I’m giving you the keys of my house. And I’m going to ratify any decision of yours, P7, on matter X. " Then you tell a group of colleagues of mine: " If you guys reach a decision on matter X, I’ll be with you” .
Are you by this second declaration giving the keys of your house to each of them ?

b) The prime minister of the davidic King, keeper of the keys, was one.
we saw that Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (“B J.” i, 5, "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind

"
Shall we suppose, Soc, that every pharisee had the queen’s keys ?

Fascinating! I’ve read Josephus’ The Jewish War and found it helpful in understanding the historical context of the New Testament. Would you say that, according to Josephus, the Keys of the Kingdom are a metaphor for the power to bind (by way of administrating public affairs) and the power to loose (by way of readmitting those whom they pleased)?

a) i do not know any pun where the word Boanerges is used to signify ( or seems to signify, if you prefer) Jesus is going to build His Church specifically on them.

b)
It has been reminded in this thread too that the term rock is associated with truth and the divinity. IMHO Jesus associates this man to Himself in an unparalleled way.

*“Christ is the Rock, …and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistency of firm faith.” *

(St. Ambrose). What is your impression about these words ?

I think i could learn a lot from St. Ambrose. If what he said was what Christ intended, then He was saying Peter was like Him. But, was not John like Jesus, too? There is a passage in the Bible where God says this:“I will never leave you nor forsake you.”

(Joshua 1:5)
and these words are repeated several times (Deuteronomy 31:6-8; 1 Kings 8:57; Psalm 9:10; Psalm 37:25; Psalm 94:14). I would say that John certainly showed himself to be like Christ, for he did not forsake Christ at the hour of His death. But what about Peter? At the same moment that John was at Jesus’ side (risking arrest and the same suffering and death) Peter was hiding and weeping like a coward and a child. And, after seeing the scene in the film Saving Private Ryan, where a man hid like a coward as his friend struggled for his life in and died in the next room, I think I shall never look at Peter the same. And i’m certain that at the moment of Christ’s suffering and death, John, more than Peter, was more like Christ. John certainly lived his words:In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.

(1 John 4:17)

a) “feeding the sheep”, as in John 21, was a scriptural metaphor for “governing people”.
Which is distinct from “helping each other charitably”.
IMHO we should not then read here " be among those who help each other" but “govern my flock, my Church”.

b)
At the Last Supper you remember Simon was manifestly singled out by the Lord, and given the task to confirm, strengthen his brothers.

I hope this can help.

Bless you
P7.

But not even Peter would say that he himself is the only shepherd, for he writes:To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

(1 Peter 5:1-3)
If during the time when he wrote this elders of the church were shepherds, then how much more so would the other Apostles (who were so much more than merely elders) also be shepherds of Jesus’ sheep. Don’t you agree?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

P7:

Don’t give up hope. Two out of four ain’t bad!



I’m sure you’ll be able to help me see the truth about (3) and (4) too. Keep up the good work!

 

[Thing]

Thing:

Good to hear from you again!

Yes, i understand that Peter confirmed his love for Christ. But i was wondering whether Peter was better than the other Apostles. It seems to me that the other Apostles loved Christ, too (except, of course, for Judas). And neither Peter nor Christ said that Peter loved Him more than the others. I can give many passages of Sacred Scripture that demonstrate the love the other Apostles had for Jesus. Can you give even one that proves Peter’s love for Christ surpassed their own?

The fact that He spoke to Peter alone, do you love me…feed my lambs. If He had spoken to St Mathew alone and gave him the keys alone and called him rock alone and gave him the power to bind and loose and if the other Apostles saw in Mathew what seemed to be a pillar of the church and if St Mathew seemed to lead the decisions of the 12, the St. Mathew would be considered first among the Apostles, the one He said must serve as He served if he wished to be leader.
But then it just happens to be with St. Peter and not with St. Mathew that all of these things are associated. Catholics did not choose St. Peter, all of these things were written by the 4 evangelists and St. Paul. Obviously St. Paul saw authority in the church in the persons of St. Peter, St. James and St. John.
9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:
It was not; when St. Paul saw the grace that had been given to the 3, Peter, James, and John; it was, when the pillars of the church saw the grace that had been given to St Paul.

And of the three pillars of the church, it was to Peter alone that He said the words "I will give to thee [Peter] the keys; and to Peter alone He was speaking to when He said ‘feed My lambs’.
I think you are reading things with your ambiguity switched off, (or highly biased the wrong way, as these things as they are related and written give a strong bias of their own).

If your reading was to be supported then He would have said not to Peter alone but to ‘Apostles all, feed My sheep’; 'Apostles all, I give you the keys '; ‘Apostles all, I build My church on you all’.

Now all the Apostles shared the same belief in the same truths, the same church; but it just happens to be an historical fact that He singled out for His own reason, and good reasons, St. Peter, apparently for a special purpose, in the same way that He did not in the same way and for a special purpose, single out St. Thomas in the Gospels .

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The fact that He spoke to Peter alone, do you love me…feed my lambs. If He had spoken to St Mathew alone and gave him the keys alone and called him rock alone and gave him the power to bind and loose and if the other Apostles saw in Mathew what seemed to be a pillar of the church and if St Mathew seemed to lead the decisions of the 12, the St. Mathew would be considered first among the Apostles, the one He said must serve as He served if he wished to be leader.
But then it just happens to be with St. Peter and not with St. Mathew that all of these things are associated. Catholics did not choose St. Peter, all of these things were written by the 4 evangelists and St. Paul. Obviously St. Paul saw authority in the church in the persons of St. Peter, St. James and St. John.
9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:
It was not; when St. Paul saw the grace that had been given to the 3, Peter, James, and John; it was, when the pillars of the church saw the grace that had been given to St Paul.

And of the three pillars of the church, it was to Peter alone that He said the words "I will give to thee [Peter] the keys; and to Peter alone He was speaking to when He said ‘feed My lambs’.
I think you are reading things with your ambiguity switched off, (or highly biased the wrong way, as these things as they are related and written give a strong bias of their own).

If your reading was to be supported then He would have said not to Peter alone but to ‘Apostles all, feed My sheep’; 'Apostles all, I give you the keys '; ‘Apostles all, I build My church on you all’.

Now all the Apostles shared the same belief in the same truths, the same church; but it just happens to be an historical fact that He singled out for His own reason, and good reasons, St. Peter, apparently for a special purpose, in the same way that He did not in the same way and for a special purpose, single out St. Thomas in the Gospels .

I hear what you are saying, Thing. Peter was given the:

1. 
   *]Job of feeding sheep
   *]Title of Pillar of the Church
   *]Power to tie up and cut loose
   *]Keys to the City of God
   *]Nick name Rocky
   
   All of these together are strong evidence that Peter had the Power the other Apostles did not, you seem to be saying. I want to know that what you say is true, but i want to be sure. If you are willing to help me be certain, let’s look at each of them one at a time, staring with (1).The third time [Jesus] said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”
   
   (John 21:17)
   I’m guessing that feeding the sheep is a metaphor for being a shepherd, or authority, over God’s people. After all, the ancient kings (for example, the Kings of Babylon) called themselves shepherds. Do you believe this authority belonged to Peter alone, or to the other Apostles, too? That is, do you think he was the shepherd over God’s people, or were the other Apostles also Jesus’ shepherds?

 

[Thing]

I hear what you are saying, Thing. Peter was given the:

1. 
   *]Job of feeding sheep
   *]Title of Pillar of the Church
   *]Power to tie up and cut loose
   *]Keys to the City of God
   *]Nick name Rocky
   
   All of these together are strong evidence that Peter had the Power the other Apostles did not, you seem to be saying. I want to know that what you say is true, but i want to be sure. If you are willing to help me be certain, let’s look at each of them one at a time, staring with (1).The third time [Jesus] said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”
   
   (John 21:17)
   I’m guessing that feeding the sheep is a metaphor for being a shepherd, or authority, over God’s people. After all, the ancient kings (for example, the Kings of Babylon) called themselves shepherds. Do you believe this authority belonged to Peter alone, or to the other Apostles, too? That is, do you think he was the shepherd over God’s people, or were the other Apostles also Jesus’ shepherds?

1. 
   Here is the little scene; Jesus had chosen 12 men who all of them followed him equally, believed him equally and obeyed him equally. Jesus singles out one man, Peter, and asks that man particularly to feed His lambs.
   
   I agree with the natural bias of that text, that Jesus *was *actually speaking to Peter.
   
   15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Here is the little scene; Jesus had chosen 12 men who all of them followed him equally, believed him equally and obeyed him equally. Jesus singles out one man, Peter, and asks that man particularly to feed His lambs.

I agree with the natural bias of that text, that Jesus *was *actually speaking to Peter.

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

Yes, i also believe Jesus was speaking only to Peter. What i’m asking is whether you think only Peter was given this job of being shepherd of Jesus’ sheep.

 

[utunumsint]

Ut

Thanks for the help and for taking the time to quote one of the Early Church Fathers (i have much to learn from them)!

Yes, i think you might be correct about Origin’s understanding of Sacred Scripture. But please notice how Origin himself qualifies this understanding. In the quote you provided, he begins by saying this: But to me it seems that…

Now, when i start a sentence with the words “It seems to me,” then what i mean is that i have an opinion that might be true (or might even be likely to be true) but i’m in no way certain that what i’m saying is actually true. In other words, Origin was giving his opinion, and not a direct revelation from God. If he was posting this on a forum, he would likely begin with the acronym “IMHO;” don’t you think?

Oh sure. He was a theologian afterall. But he has a couple of things in his favour. He is a Greek speeker, and he is only a few generations away from the apostles and Christ.

That is not to say that you or i cannot trust Origin’s opinion. That only means that Origin himself did not completely trust (or was not certain) that what he said was true. We find the same thing, at times, with the biblical authors. For example, Paul writes this:To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

(1 Corinthians 7:12)
Here, Paul gives his sincere opinion, but he sincerely admits it is his own, and not a direct revelation from God. Origin’s words that you quoted have the same intention, i believe. Since he is giving only his opinion, i cannot be certain that he is certain that what he says is true. Can you?

Nope. But it certainly gives some insight into how the early church saw these word. They could be wrong, of course.

He has this to say about the episcopate in his day, who were claiming authority based on the keys.

But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Saviour, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it
was said to that Peter, “Thou art Peter;”(1) and if they are such that upon them the church is built by Christ, and to them with good reason this could be referred; and the gates of Hades ought not to prevail against him when he wishes to bind and loose.

So here we see that the right to bind and loose was claimed by the episcopate. But Origen, the theologian, says that they only have this right if they have the way of life of Peter, on account of which it was said, “Thou art Peter”. What exactly this means, I am not sure. But it does show that the episcopate believed that they had this binding and loosing authority.

So the question I have is that if these were the ones at the third level of binding and loosing authority mentioned in Matthew 18, who are we to reject these legitimate successors of the apostles? What right does the lower level courts have over the upper layer courts? Is there any presedent for total rebellion from this church structure coming from the New Testament if this was the nature of “Church”?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Thing]

Yes, i also believe Jesus was speaking only to Peter. What i’m asking is whether you think only Peter was given this job of being shepherd of Jesus’ sheep.

Yes, the verse clearly states that only Peter was given the job of feeding the lambs, in fact, he was told three times in succession to ‘do this job’. .

 

[paul_c]

Socrates4Jesus:

There are many places where Peter’s primacy is defined.
We’ve discussed Matthew 16 a lot.
Let’s discuss the two other scriptural Gospel accounts bringing out Peter’s primacy:
Start with Luke 22:

24 Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest.
25 He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’;
26 but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant.
27 For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.
28 It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29 and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

So you see, the Apostles were arguing about who was the Greatest and Jesus settles it by saying first that the greatest will be the one that serves, and then turns to Peter and tells him to strengthen his brothers.

Peter learns this lesson well, for how does he address the rest of the clergy in 1Peter 5?
1 So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed.
2 Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly.
3 Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory

Now lets look at John 21:

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 then 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 distressed that he had said to him a 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 Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”
19 He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

Jesus tells Peter to Feed his sheep, Tend his sheep, and feed his sheep out of Love for Jesus. This is a clear commission, given to no one else and Jesus concludes it by saying to Peter: Follow me . Notice that it is also shown to be a service commission: to Feed and tend the flock. And notice how Peter uses the same analogy (tending the flock), when decribing the preistly duties in 1Peter 5.

Peter was a humble leader, as taught by Christ, yet he demonstrated great power in his ministry. He named a replacement apostle. He speaks for the apostles in Acts 2-4, interpreting the jewish scripture and delivering the gospel message of Jesus. He defined the requirements for converts. At his word, Anias and Sapphira died for their sins, He excommunicates Simon Magnus. He declared the doctrine that Christians need not follow the Jewish laws. He heals the paralytic and even brings Tabitha back to life. He ultimately defines Paul’s letters as scripture in 2Peter 3. In short, he demonstrates all the powers of the Papacy within scripture.

I really don’t understand why there is any doubt to the role Peter played. It doesn’t seem ambiguous at all to me.