What are you protesting?

[GregoryPalamas]

And all those other guys who followed Him around weren’t supposed to be responsible for feeding His sheep? James was tossed off the temple for what reason, then? Was Paul not teaching and feeding?

In Wisdom’s defense and because he and I agree with the Church and the Biblical record, Wisdom did not say what wasn’t but what was. All the successors of St. Peter are to feed the Lord’s sheep. Since the other Apostles did not reject St. Peter’s leadership and instead followed Christ’s command to retain St. Peter as their leader it is fairly certain that they to were feeding the Lord’s sheep. They were not doing so independently from our Lord or His servant St. Peter.

What about you?

CDL

 

[reteeks21]

In Wisdom’s defense and because he and I agree with the Church and the Biblical record, Wisdom did not say what wasn’t but what was. All the successors of St. Peter are to feed the Lord’s sheep. Since the other Apostles did not reject St. Peter’s leadership and instead followed Christ’s command to retain St. Peter as their leader it is fairly certain that they to were feeding the Lord’s sheep. They were not doing so independently from our Lord or His servant St. Peter.

What about you?

CDL

Am I doing it independently of Christ’s word and direction? According to you, I am sure that I am, but I in no way think that. If no people rejected Peter as the leader, was Paul wrong to scold him for his actions towards the Gentiles?

Also, just kind of an aside, why is Peter not mentioned more in the Canon? Why would the Catholics who put it together not put more about Peter in it? I in now way think Peter is not important, but I have always wondered why don’t have more about or by him?

 

[ibkc]

Also, just kind of an aside, why is Peter not mentioned more in the Canon? Why would the Catholics who put it together not put more about Peter in it? I in now way think Peter is not important, but I have always wondered why don’t have more about or by him?

He’s all over the New Testament, and nearly always named first among the Apostles. Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13

Here’s the Apostles called “Peter and his companions.” Lk 9:32

Peter named as the one speaking for the Apostles: Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69

Appearing in some of the NT’s most dramatic moments: Mt 14:28-32; 17:24; Mk 10:28

First to preach to the crowds on Pentecost: Acts 2:14-40

First Apostle to perform a healing: Acts 3:6-7

That’s a lot, considering that the focus of the NT is Jesus, not Peter.

 

[wisdomseeker]

And all those other guys who followed Him around weren’t supposed to be responsible for feeding His sheep? James was tossed off the temple for what reason, then? Was Paul not teaching and feeding?

you said this correct. peter’s followers. obviously they weren t there just to be there. they also had a job to do which was the building of the Church everyone had to be busy. do you know what i mean?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Am I doing it independently of Christ’s word and direction? According to you, I am sure that I am, but I in no way think that. If no people rejected Peter as the leader, was Paul wrong to scold him for his actions towards the Gentiles?

Also, just kind of an aside, why is Peter not mentioned more in the Canon? Why would the Catholics who put it together not put more about Peter in it? I in now way think Peter is not important, but I have always wondered why don’t have more about or by him?

what you want you cannot find. common sense tells me that they could not have recorded every word or every instruction given. this is a big a problem for us is it not? catholics believe on the Church and trust what Jesus said about His church. others on the other hand need prove. if it is not on paper, forget it it doesnt exist. it is not like that to us catholic. that makes it harder for us to communicate, doesnt it? Jews had the same trouble they just could not fit Jesus on their Bible. it just wouldn fit. because Jesus was not what they want Him to be but it was how Our God want it to be. until this day they pick little things here and there to prove He was not the Messiah. this should scary you.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Am I doing it independently of Christ’s word and direction? According to you, I am sure that I am, but I in no way think that. If no people rejected Peter as the leader, was Paul wrong to scold him for his actions towards the Gentiles?

Also, just kind of an aside, why is Peter not mentioned more in the Canon? Why would the Catholics who put it together not put more about Peter in it? I in now way think Peter is not important, but I have always wondered why don’t have more about or by him?

Paul scolding Peter has nothing to do with whether or nor Peter was the leader of the Church. St. Paul’s actions did not make Jesus out to be a liar. Moreover, it was to St. Peter and the Apostles that St. Paul went to be ordained after the latter’s sojourn in the desert. If you are a Protestant you are following St. Peter to some extent but your open rejection of his leadership puts you in a rather precarious position. You are unaware of St. Peter’s leadership and the leadership of his successors only because you have chosen to be unaware. Not because he didn’t exercise his leadership.

CDL

 

[reteeks21]

He’s all over the New Testament, and nearly always named first among the Apostles. Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13

So being first on a list makes you the most important?

Here’s the Apostles called “Peter and his companions.” Lk 9:32

Peter named as the one speaking for the Apostles: Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69

Appearing in some of the NT’s most dramatic moments: Mt 14:28-32; 17:24; Mk 10:28

First to preach to the crowds on Pentecost: Acts 2:14-40

First Apostle to perform a healing: Acts 3:6-7

That’s a lot, considering that the focus of the NT is Jesus, not Peter.

So being first on a list makes you the most important?

Keep in mind Luke was a friend of Peter, and Peter dictated this Gospel to him. So it would stand to reason that if it is by him then his name would come first.

Mt. 18:21 makes no references as to him speaking for the apostles. Peter says “me” and “I”, not “us”.

Mk.8:29 says that Jesus was talking to his disciples (plural). He asked “them” and Peter, naturally, jumped in and blurted it out. He is not singling out Peter. It is just written that Peter answered before anyone else. That doesn’t make him anymore special.

Lk 12:41 Again, Peter is dictating it so he would want the question that asked to be in there.

Jn 6:69 Just because Peter speaks up does not mean he has a special place. It is simply a statement of fact that opened his mouth first. In verse 70 Jesus says “I chose YOU, the TWELVE.” He does not single out Peter.

Mt 14:28 In this spot Peter serves as an example of lack of faith, not as someone/thing we would want to emulate. In essence, Jesus is making an example of him.

In those last two references everyone is present but Peter runs his mouth first. Just because someone blurts something out first does not make them special.

Please do not think I am down on Peter. His life, much like John’s, is a great example for all of us to learn from. The fact remains, though, that Paul and his teaching, which was for us Gentiles (i.e, the rest of the pagan world) takes precedence over Peter and his actions. Peter has his place, but I see no one closer to God and His message for the outside world than Paul.

 

[ibkc]

So being first on a list makes you the most important?

If you take the point of view that the books in the New Testament canon are divinely inspired, and therefore every single thing has meaning - then yes, the fact that Peter is consistently represented as first among the Apostles is extremely important.

If you take the point of view that there are things in the Bible that were left wholly to chance, then, no, Peter’s prominence among the Apostles might not mean a darned thing.

 

[reteeks21]

If you take the point of view that the books in the New Testament canon are divinely inspired, and therefore every single thing has meaning - then yes, the fact that Peter is consistently represented as first among the Apostles is extremely important.

If you take the point of view that there are things in the Bible that were left wholly to chance, then, no, Peter’s prominence among the Apostles might not mean a darned thing.

Opening your mouth first does not make you special. It means that you are curious or sure of yourself, which in the first case he was, and in the second his confidence failed him a few times.

 

[ibkc]

Opening your mouth first does not make you special. It means that you are curious or sure of yourself, which in the first case he was, and in the second his confidence failed him a few times.

Are you saying that it is just random chance that Peter is singled out so often?

 

[reteeks21]

Are you saying that it is just random chance that Peter is singled out so often?

Not at all. As I have already said, opening your mouth is singling yourself out, not someone else doing it for you. If he is that special why do the teachings of Paul dominate the N.T.?

 

[Publisher]

So being first on a list makes you the most important?

Keep in mind Luke was a friend of Peter, and Peter dictated this Gospel to him. So it would stand to reason that if it is by him then his name would come first.

Mt. 18:21 makes no references as to him speaking for the apostles. Peter says “me” and “I”, not “us”.

Mk.8:29 says that Jesus was talking to his disciples (plural). He asked “them” and Peter, naturally, jumped in and blurted it out. He is not singling out Peter. It is just written that Peter answered before anyone else. That doesn’t make him anymore special.

Lk 12:41 Again, Peter is dictating it so he would want the question that asked to be in there.

Jn 6:69 Just because Peter speaks up does not mean he has a special place. It is simply a statement of fact that opened his mouth first. In verse 70 Jesus says “I chose YOU, the TWELVE.” He does not single out Peter.

Mt 14:28 In this spot Peter serves as an example of lack of faith, not as someone/thing we would want to emulate. In essence, Jesus is making an example of him.

In those last two references everyone is present but Peter runs his mouth first. Just because someone blurts something out first does not make them special.

Please do not think I am down on Peter. His life, much like John’s, is a great example for all of us to learn from. The fact remains, though, that Paul and his teaching, which was for us Gentiles (i.e, the rest of the pagan world) takes precedence over Peter and his actions. Peter has his place, but I see no one closer to God and His message for the outside world than Paul.

If I remember my conservative biblical “history” correctly, it was Paul that Luke was companion to not Mark and Mark was the companion of Peter. The NT records really give no hint at to the authorship of the gospels…it is a later “tradition”…we abhore a vacuum and need to fill it with info…even if it may or may not be true. I read all the time by conservative believers that Paul wrote the epistle of Hebrews…but many believe this is not the case.

**There is no evidence that any of the apostles “dictated” any of the gospel material. It was compiled through oral tradition and most likely some record of the remembered “sayings of Jesus” into a narrative form…“Mark” written first, then “Matthew” and “Luke” both using their own sorces along with “Mark”, then finally “John”.

I have even heard that “Matthew” took dictation from Jesus and recorded his words."**

 

[ibkc]

Not at all. As I have already said, opening your mouth is singling yourself out, not someone else doing it for you. If he is that special why do the teachings of Paul dominate the N.T.?

So here’s my next question. If the fact that Peter is shown so prominently in the NT, either by “opening [his] mouth” or otherwise, doesn’t demonstrate that Peter was first among the Apostles; but this depiction isn’t just random chance - then what what was the point of the authors of the gospel in presenting him in this way?

 

[reteeks21]

If I remember my conservative biblical “history” correctly, it was Paul that Luke was companion to not Mark and Mark was the companion of Peter. The NT records really give no hint at to the authorship of the gospels…it is a later “tradition”…we abhore a vacuum and need to fill it with info…even if it may or may not be true. I read all the time by conservative believers that Paul wrote the epistle of Hebrews…but many believe this is not the case.

**There is no evidence that any of the apostles “dictated” any of the gospel material. It was compiled through oral tradition and most likely some record of the remembered “sayings of Jesus” into a narrative form…“Mark” written first, then “Matthew” and “Luke” both using their own sorces along with “Mark”, then finally “John”.

I have even heard that “Matthew” took dictation from Jesus and recorded his words."**

I stand corrected on the Luke and Mark thing. Thanks. But it is obvious that they wrote down what had been communicated to him. If not, he would not have written it. If you want to use the arguement that of oral tradtion we could say that about the entire Bible, except for Paul’s works.

 

[Publisher]

I stand corrected on the Luke and Mark thing. Thanks. But it is obvious that they wrote down what had been communicated to him. If not, he would not have written it. If you want to use the arguement that of oral tradtion we could say that about the entire Bible, except for Paul’s works.

Yes we can say that about a large part of the Bible. The OT Pentatuch took it’s final form after the Exile…and is a complilation of ‘oral’ tradition down the centuries to when the priestly authors compiled it in the form to what we have today.

 

[reteeks21]

So here’s my next question. If the fact that Peter is shown so prominently in the NT, either by “opening [his] mouth” or otherwise, doesn’t demonstrate that Peter was first among the Apostles; but this depiction isn’t just random chance - then what what was the point of the authors of the gospel in presenting him in this way?

Again, if they are seeking to write it as it happened, and he was the first to speak up, then that is how they would write it. It’s just like any other historical document. I have a kid in my classroom who asks questions constantly, but he is by no means first in my class.

 

[ibkc]

Again, if they are seeking to write it as it happened, and he was the first to speak up, then that is how they would write it. It’s just like any other historical document.

Please don’t take this as me trying to badger you. I am honestly seeking answers here.

If we accept that the Bible is a historical document, is it strictly informational, like a transcript of a court proceeding, or is it something more? Do we consider that everything in it has a meaning, or are there things in it that are there “just because” and for no other reason or point? If the latter is true, then who decides what is what?

See, I take it this way. The gospels are very lean and to-the-point in their storytelling. They don’t meander on and on and linger on irrelevant minutia. They don’t tell us what happened during every second of Jesus’ several years of ministry. They’re trying to convey the essence of His message. Since the gospel authors are trying to hit upon the Most Important Points, it makes no sense to me that they would feel the need to include extraneous information, like the idea that Peter was kind of a blabbermouth who talked more than the other Apostles, unless there was a point to telling us this. Otherwise it adds nothing to the story. The Bible is NOT like a transcript of a court proceeding.

 

[reteeks21]

Please don’t take this as me trying to badger you. I am honestly seeking answers here.

If we accept that the Bible is a historical document, is it strictly informational, like a transcript of a court proceeding, or is it something more? Do we consider that everything in it has a meaning, or are there things in it that are there “just because” and for no other reason or point? If the latter is true, then who decides what is what?

See, I take it this way. The gospels are very lean and to-the-point in their storytelling. They don’t meander on and on and linger on irrelevant minutia. They don’t tell us what happened during every second of Jesus’ several years of ministry. They’re trying to convey the essence of His message. Since the gospel authors are trying to hit upon the Most Important Points, it makes no sense to me that they would feel the need to include extraneous information, like the idea that Peter was kind of a blabbermouth who talked more than the other Apostles, unless there was a point to telling us this. Otherwise it adds nothing to the story. The Bible is NOT like a transcript of a court proceeding.

In no way do I take it like that. I enjoy decent conversation.

I do not think of the Bible as just a transcript. I think it is the most fantastic book full of truth as well as very interesting characters. I see Peter, and the others in the Gospels, as those type of guys, and the writers put it to us as it happened. I think Peter was a crazy character who had quite a few adventures with Jesus, but I don’t think he should get primacy over others. I do believe that he was a pivotal person in the early church, but so were all the other folks mentioned. To me, the Bible tells it like it is, and if that is comparable to a transcript, then so be it. But it is a much more exciting transcript. Again, I think the example of Paul counter balances Peter’s importance, and Paul makes it clear that Christ is central. That should not be seen as an attack on Peter, because it is not. It’s just how I see it.

 

[ibkc]

I do not think of the Bible as just a transcript. I think it is the most fantastic book full of truth as well as very interesting characters. I see Peter, and the others in the Gospels, as those type of guys, and the writers put it to us as it happened. I think Peter was a crazy character who had quite a few adventures with Jesus, but I don’t think he should get primacy over others. I do believe that he was a pivotal person in the early church, but so were all the other folks mentioned. To me, the Bible tells it like it is, and if that is comparable to a transcript, then so be it. But it is a much more exciting transcript. Again, I think the example of Paul counter balances Peter’s importance, and Paul makes it clear that Christ is central. That should not be seen as an attack on Peter, because it is not. It’s just how I see it.

Fair enough. Hopefully though, you can understand why Catholics interpret it the way I have described. To me, it’s just as good an argument.

 

[reteeks21]

Fair enough. Hopefully though, you can understand why Catholics interpret it the way I have described. To me, it’s just as good an argument.

I certainly can, and I enjoy talking about it. To me, though, it is no reason for Christians to start a verbal war over, you know? I’d rather get along, which I think you and I have proven can be done.