|
Post by StAnne on Apr 18, 2010 22:23:38 GMT -5
You will have to ask Jesus why he said those words to (Simon) Peter instead of Paul. ~~ I don't believe the Catholic interpretation is correct of the rock refers to Peter...... but to Jesus the Rock! foundation chief cornerstone himself! that all preachers of the gospel should line up and build upon Jesus the Rock foundation and NOT on Peter.
~~ In the Greek "Peter" is Petros ("detached stone") and "rock" is petra ("bedrock") The :Bedrock" on which the church is built is 1) Christ; 2) Peter's confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah
Paul wrote in I Cor. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is already laid which is Jesus Christ. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation and another buildeth on it. But let every man be careful how he buildeth thereupon.
Jesus is the Cornerstone. Jesus renamed Simon. Jesus gave him the new name "Peter" rock. However, Jesus did NOT say... 18 And so I say to you, I am Jesus, and upon this rock I will build my churchJesus DID say (after changing Simon's name to Peter (rock)... 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church Now why would Jesus have renamed Simon to Peter (rock) if there was nothing of significance getting ready to happen?
Being a student of the Bible, you know that a name change signified something important was about to happen.(The 'petra' issue to which you refer is a translation issue, and is easily explained.)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 18, 2010 22:57:54 GMT -5
Jesus is the Cornerstone. Jesus renamed Simon. Jesus gave him the new name "Peter" rock. However, Jesus did NOT say... 18 And so I say to you, I am Jesus, and upon this rock I will build my churchJesus DID say (after changing Simon's name to Peter (rock)... 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church Now why would Jesus have renamed Simon to Peter (rock) if there was nothing of significance getting ready to happen?
Being a student of the Bible, you know that a name change signified something important was about to happen.(The 'petra' issue to which you refer is a translation issue, and is easily explained.) ~~ This is the first time I heard Jesus renamed Peter's to the rock! I think this is another interpretation of the Catholic church. Do you read anywhere others called his new name the Rock instead Peter in the book of Acts or epistles?
Peter became one of the leading apostles in the book of Acts but there were other apostles, who played a greater part in establishing and building up the church of Jesus such as Paul, Barnabas, James, and John than Peter. Are you yanking my chain? Peter = rock.The man whom gave the first sermon in the history of Christianity was born Simon, son of Jonah. He grew up with his brother Andrew, who also would be an apostle, and together they fished the Sea of Galilee as their trade. However, it was when Christ, the God-man, came to make them fishers of men that Simon first learned that he was to be called by another name: "Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Rock.)" (John 1:42) The word Cephas is Aramaic, the language of Jesus and the apostles, and it means rock. Yet Simon continued to be called by his birthname as he followed Christ, learning from the Saviour's wisdom. It was not until he had spoken that earth-shaking truth revealed to him by the Father, the truth that his rabbi was indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God, that Simon would be given that most famous of names, as His Lord said to him, "I say to you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18) This name Peter, so common in our age, most certainly resounded as none other ever had in the newly renamed apostle's ear, for it had so different a meaning for he as it does now to us. He did not hear, as we read, the word 'Peter,' but instead the Aramaic word Kepha, the word we say in English as 'rock.' The New Testament manuscripts were written in Greek, andin fact the name "Peter" is nothing more than the Anglicanized Greek word for rock, 'Petros.' Whenever we see the word 'Peter' in our English Bible, if we turn to the same passage in the original Greek it says, 'Petros' - Rock. The significance of this is made more clear by the knowledge that Christ's declaration is the first recorded usage in all of history of the name Peter. To Christ, and to Peter, and to the apostles, he was not Peter in the way we know him. No, he was simply Rock. soladeicaritas.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-did-jesus-rename-simon.htmlAnother link--explains the translation issues of 'rock'.www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/origin_papacy/
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Apr 18, 2010 23:19:38 GMT -5
Interesting how people interpret this to mean their denomination. The 2x2s say their church. Not how I heard it, "this rock" refers to the revelation from God that Jesus was the son of God - which makes sense in context; When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 18, 2010 23:37:01 GMT -5
I remember recently reading the footnote in my ESV Bible which supports the idea that "this rock" does refer to "Peter", not to Christ. This is interesting because the ESV tends to evangelical Protestant interpretation on contentious points so you'd think they would stick to the traditional Protestant interpretation, that "this rock" refers to Christ. However, you won't be surprised by the rest of the explanation; it's quite interesting. Anyway, I found the footnote on-line, so here it is: Matt. 16:18 you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter's relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter's confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus' entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself. But even if “this rock” refers to Peter, the question remains as to what that means. Protestants generally have thought that it refers to Peter in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah, and that the other disciples would share in that role as they made a similar confession (see Eph. 2:20, where the church is built on all the apostles; cf. Rev. 21:14). Jesus' statement did not mean that Peter would have greater authority than the other apostles (indeed, Paul corrects him publicly in Gal. 2:11–14), nor did it mean that he would be infallible in his teaching (Jesus rebukes him in Matt. 16:23), nor did it imply anything about a special office for Peter or successors to such an office. Certainly in the first half of Acts Peter appears as the spokesman and leader of the Jerusalem church, but he is still “sent” by other apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and he has to give an account of his actions to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1–18). Peter is presented as having only one voice at the Jerusalem council, and James has the decisive final word (Acts 15:7–21). And, though Peter certainly has a central role in the establishment of the church, he disappears from the Acts narrative after Acts 16. “Church” (Gk. ekklēsia) is used only here and in Matt. 18:17 in the Gospels. Jesus points ahead to the time when his disciples, his family of faith (12:48–50), will be called “my church.” Jesus will build his church, and though it is founded on the apostles and the prophets, “Christ Jesus himself [is] the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Some scholars object that Jesus could not have foreseen the later emergence of the “church” at this time, but the use of Greek ekklēsia to refer to God's “called out” people has substantial background in the Septuagint (e.g., Deut. 9:10; 31:30; 1 Sam. 17:47; 1 Kings 8:14). Jesus is predicting that he will build a community of believers who follow him. This “called out” community would soon become known as “the church,” a separate community of believers, as described in the book of Acts. gates of hell (Gk. hadēs, “Hades”; cf. “gates of Sheol” [Isa. 38:10]; “gates of death” [Job 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18]). “Gates” were essential for a city's security and power. Hades, or Sheol, is the realm of the dead. Death will not overpower the church. (ESV study bible)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 1:29:08 GMT -5
I remember recently reading the footnote in my ESV Bible which supports the idea that "this rock" does refer to "Peter", not to Christ. This is interesting because the ESV tends to evangelical Protestant interpretation on contentious points so you'd think they would stick to the traditional Protestant interpretation, that "this rock" refers to Christ. However, you won't be surprised by the rest of the explanation; it's quite interesting. Anyway, I found the footnote on-line, so here it is: Matt. 16:18 you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter's relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter's confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus' entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself. Jesus' entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself.Yes. A step in the right direction...one piece of the puzzle...especially since vs 17 preceeds and vs 19 follows. Matthew 16 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." So right here in very short order: 17 Jesus said to him in reply, " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Pretty powerful stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 1:45:14 GMT -5
We have gone of topic on this thread. I believe Margaret Irvine was the rock hewn out (whatever the quote is?), upon which the (Irvine) church was built.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 19, 2010 2:16:30 GMT -5
Kiwi wrote: I think you would be very hard pressed to find any genuine person in our fellowship would have even considered such a thing. I hope you are wrong here. This implies that on what we now know, it may be far easier to find a paedophile than a prankster within the fold. That's right don't accept any responsibility for what you did and put the focus onto others weak
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 19, 2010 2:18:30 GMT -5
It is not that it was offensive it is a Christian you have let your Master down in the practice of deceit and that is what hurts, Using your logic... On a scale of deceit, where might it then place any who ( knowingly) perpetuated the actual and/or apostolic "back to the shores of Galilee" teachings? For any who maintain this wasn't so taught, where might the scale of deceit apply for those in authority who allowed persistent, incorrect perceptions to exist and spread. ( Incorrect perceptions would apply for all of us who have testified we were taught "back to the beginning" in the actual or apostolic sense). So you think it fine to let the Master down in something which is easily controlled ?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 19, 2010 2:21:56 GMT -5
The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope"Not unless one disregards Jesus' words to Peter in Matthew 16:18.And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church... Yes, he said upon this rock I will build my church. Have you reinterpreted this to mean the Roman Catholic church? Interesting how people interpret this to mean their denomination. The 2x2s say their church, the catholics say their church, the JWs say their church, etc. Where did Jesus say he came to build a particular denomination? I say Jesus' church is made up of all born again believers regardless of denomination. I say His church is made up of Baptists, Catholics, brethren, Missionary Alliance, etc. His spirit dwells in the believer, regardless of their denomination. We don't say our church but Christ's Church
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 19, 2010 2:33:49 GMT -5
Diversions aside, St Anne makes a good point. I hope Kiwi comes back and answers the question. I cannot say that there was or there was not any physical connection because I plainly don't know, so I'm not saying there was or there was not nor am I concerned in any way about that. But I can say this that the connection in the Spirit does go back to the shores of Galilee and if you don't recognise that you can't have of His Spirit. For in the sense you are driving at I have never heard nor read of any such thing preached, spoken of or written of in our fellowship it has always been in the spiritual sense. There we are pinky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 3:53:22 GMT -5
Kiwi wrote: I think you would be very hard pressed to find any genuine person in our fellowship would have even considered such a thing. I hope you are wrong here. This implies that on what we now know, it may be far easier to find a paedophile than a prankster within the fold. That's right don't accept any responsibility for what you did and put the focus onto others weak Kiwi, you need to come out of the undergrowth into the light. It's not a question of responsibility, it's one of perspective! I fully accept the responsibility of a prankster. Now, consider the flip side of the coin?
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 19, 2010 5:02:34 GMT -5
The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope", and that the Roman Catholic Church goes back to the "shores of Galilee". The same could be said for the ahistorical claim that Peter was the "first pope"Not unless one disregards Jesus' words to Peter in Matthew 16:18.And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...Protestants do not disregard these words, but understand them differently, Anne. However, even if one were not a Protestant, I think it is fair to say that one really is straining the text if you see here Peter + genealogical type lineage + papal infallibility + all the other dogmas and doctrines that have accumulated over the years justified by this one line. Because, folks, you see: this is all Rome has got. Do the Church Fathers understand this passage in this way? You would think the "heavy-hitters" closest to the events of the New Testament (indeed, the same Fathers routinely cited by Anne et al in defense of their doctrine), would support that perspective. They do not. Let us take Origin, for example: But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles?[/b] Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church?' Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname 'rock' who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, 'Thou art Peter' etc., down to the words, 'prevail against it.[/color] Examples could be multiplied. But, as Origin points out, the strength of the church - that which provides the firm foundation so that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it - is not a mere man (albeit an Apostle). The authority of the church is not derived from one person within it; the authority of the church is derived from Christ, and him crucified. The power and strength of the church comes to us through Christ, as it is written, " I am persuaded that neither life nor death nor anything can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus". Here we see again how Rome muddies the Gospel, transferring prestige from God to man. How great is its falsehood! How its cup runs over with enmity toward God and all wicked doctrine! One can choose to abandon its claims, with its idolatries - such as when the priest makes busy motions around the altar believing that through his prayers and intercession he can turn a disc of unleavened bread into the body, blood, soul and divinity of God! As John Calvin said, the evil of Rome is like a man who cleans toilets and laughs at those who pinch their noses whenever he comes around. He, at work in the stench all day, ceases to smell it; but when he comes into the presence of those who breathe purer air, it is immediately obvious. Likewise, the bowing down to icons (which are idols), the worship of the host and chalice of wine, the prayers to saints, the abuse of the Word of God, the worship of Mary, the turning on its head of God's order - these are a doctrinal stench which are nauseating to those of us who breathe the purity of the Gospel as it is in Christ. We are mocked by our Roman Catholic contemporaries, because we are accustomed to God's Holy Word, and not the superstitious pretensions of Rome. I am tending more and more these days to the opinion of Calvin, that one can be a Christian or a Roman Catholic, but one cannot be the two at the same time. Because it is the difference between bread and a stone; between a cooked fish and a scorpion; between night and day. Rome is a false church and it preaches ungodliness, and therefore these are not negotiable matters for all of us who love the Word of God, the glory of God, and who seek to follow the Christ. This is not the successor of Peter:Who is the successor of Peter? As the Church Fathers often maintained, the successor of Peter is you, and me, and all those who follow the apostolic example. That is what true apostolic succession means: believing what the apostles wrote, and listening to them as authorised messengers of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 19, 2010 5:04:31 GMT -5
That's right don't accept any responsibility for what you did and put the focus onto others weak Kiwi, you need to come out of the undergrowth into the light. It's not a question of responsibility, it's one of perspective! I fully accept the responsibility of a prankster. Now, consider the flip side of the coin? I don't have consider the other side of anything to know that you are weak who makes fun of others
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 19, 2010 5:09:30 GMT -5
Kiwi, you need to come out of the undergrowth into the light. It's not a question of responsibility, it's one of perspective! I fully accept the responsibility of a prankster. Now, consider the flip side of the coin? I don't have consider the other side of anything to know that you are weak who makes fun of others As I have pointed out before, if one's humour always seems to leave somebody bleeding, then it's not very funny nor very nice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 5:27:00 GMT -5
I don't have consider the other side of anything to know that you are weak who makes fun of others As I have pointed out before, if one's humour always seems to leave somebody bleeding, then it's not very funny nor very nice. "always?" Whilst the sensitivities of others must be considered, we cannot "always" see the "over-sensitivities" of others, which is unfortunate. To be governed by such is to be governed by unreasonable standards. Jason, you have admitted to detesting April fool pranks by newspapers, etc. This in my view is an example of being over-sensitive and it would be unreasonable to expect newspapers to refrain from these activities on account of these considerations. Some may view this thread differently, but I see my actions very much in the same frame as the newspapers. I mean no harm to anyone. My only motivation was to give folks here a laugh. Let me assure you that has been well achieved. In fact I am currently resisting many calls for the follow-up.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 19, 2010 6:00:48 GMT -5
As I have pointed out before, if one's humour always seems to leave somebody bleeding, then it's not very funny nor very nice. "always?" Whilst the sensitivities of others must be considered, we cannot "always" see the "over-sensitivities" of others, which is unfortunate. To be governed by such is to be governed by unreasonable standards. Jason, you have admitted to detesting April fool pranks by newspapers, etc. This in my view is an example of being over-sensitive and it would be unreasonable to expect newspapers to refrain from these activities on account of these considerations. Some may view this thread differently, but I see my actions very much in the same frame as the newspapers. I mean no harm to anyone. My only motivation was to give folks here a laugh. Let me assure you that has been well achieved. In fact I am currently resisting many calls for the follow-up. Ram, for as long as you persist in seeing other people as "over-sensitive" or otherwise defective for not commending you on your sense of humour, you will never understand that humour is a two-edged sword. I am not saying that people do not sometimes take a joke the wrong way, or that everybody must be pleased all of the time. I am saying that your idea of humour is one that I (and apparently not me alone) think is questionable. I have no doubt that your inbox has exploded due to the volume of fan mail, or that your ISP servers melted down from popular demands from all over the world for an encore. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out previously, the fact that people pat you on the shoulder (however many millions they might be) and laugh at your pranks does not make those pranks ethical, right, or decent. Popularity is not a good foundation for moral determinations.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 19, 2010 6:57:14 GMT -5
~~ Sorry, I don't agree with the Catholic teaching Peter is the ROCK which the New Testament built on. Peter is ONE of MANY rocks! which the New Testament church is build on such as Paul, James, John, Barnabas.
Eph. 2:19,20 The household of God are built upon the foundation of the APOSTLES! (ALL of apostles NOT just Peter) and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstones in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple of the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.~~ In the Greek "Peter" is Petros ("detached stone") and "rock" is petra ("bedrock") The "Bedrock" on which the church is built is 1) Christ; 2) Peter's confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. About the Rock! I believe Paul was more of a solid ROCK than Peter in many ways. Peter was a man's pleaser! afraid of what others think of himself, he was unstable sometimes. I've heard some say and I've wondered it myself...the reason Jesus named Peter, Cephas was because he was harder to change then the other apostles...firmly in the grips of being who he was not being in the firm grips of changing for the Lord. How many times did Jesus rebuke Peter? I'm not saying Jesus saw Peter as useless...but perhaps his zeal allowed him to do things that were from "his man made efforts", not the working of God! I have heard just recently that Peter was good about inserting his foot in his mouth and thus Jesus knew him to be harder to "move"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 7:53:19 GMT -5
"always?" Whilst the sensitivities of others must be considered, we cannot "always" see the "over-sensitivities" of others, which is unfortunate. To be governed by such is to be governed by unreasonable standards. Jason, you have admitted to detesting April fool pranks by newspapers, etc. This in my view is an example of being over-sensitive and it would be unreasonable to expect newspapers to refrain from these activities on account of these considerations. Some may view this thread differently, but I see my actions very much in the same frame as the newspapers. I mean no harm to anyone. My only motivation was to give folks here a laugh. Let me assure you that has been well achieved. In fact I am currently resisting many calls for the follow-up. Ram, for as long as you persist in seeing other people as "over-sensitive" or otherwise defective for not commending you on your sense of humour, you will never understand that humour is a two-edged sword. I am not saying that people do not sometimes take a joke the wrong way, or that everybody must be pleased all of the time. I am saying that your idea of humour is one that I (and apparently not me alone) think is questionable. I have no doubt that your inbox has exploded due to the volume of fan mail, or that your ISP servers melted down from popular demands from all over the world for an encore. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out previously, the fact that people pat you on the shoulder (however many millions they might be) and laugh at your pranks does not make those pranks ethical, right, or decent. Popularity is not a good foundation for moral determinations. Jason, I repeat that my only motivation was to give people a laugh. I do not court popularity or any other form of commendation. Yes admittedly my brand of humour may prove questionable to some, but I just have to live with that. You cannot please everybody all of the time. I could possess far worse characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 19, 2010 13:17:03 GMT -5
Ram, for as long as you persist in seeing other people as "over-sensitive" or otherwise defective for not commending you on your sense of humour, you will never understand that humour is a two-edged sword. I am not saying that people do not sometimes take a joke the wrong way, or that everybody must be pleased all of the time. I am saying that your idea of humour is one that I (and apparently not me alone) think is questionable. I have no doubt that your inbox has exploded due to the volume of fan mail, or that your ISP servers melted down from popular demands from all over the world for an encore. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out previously, the fact that people pat you on the shoulder (however many millions they might be) and laugh at your pranks does not make those pranks ethical, right, or decent. Popularity is not a good foundation for moral determinations. Jason, I repeat that my only motivation was to give people a laugh. I do not court popularity or any other form of commendation. Yes admittedly my brand of humour may prove questionable to some, but I just have to live with that. You cannot please everybody all of the time. I could possess far worse characteristics. Ram....you wanted to get people to laugh...the ethical question is the laughing. It turns out and looks very apparent that YOU and everyone else that LAUGHED at your op ARE laughing AT those who find it a serious situation, a serious dirty prank. You are NOT the only one in the questionable ethics here...YOU, Your compatriot of spoof and anyone who got a LAUGH out of it. yOU ALL are laughing at others....that is the difference...IF IT WAS a joke that all shared in WITHOUT someone feeling like the dirt beneath your feet, then it would be ethical...but it has left some feeling like the dirt between yours and those who laughed at others with you. I have to say most all of thos PM's are pure curiosity, not a desire for laughter! UInless they are sadistic in nature like others we know!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 14:10:04 GMT -5
I've heard some say and I've wondered it myself...the reason Jesus named Peter, Cephas was because he was harder to change then the other apostles...firmly in the grips of being who he was not being in the firm grips of changing for the Lord. How many times did Jesus rebuke Peter? I'm not saying Jesus saw Peter as useless...but perhaps his zeal allowed him to do things that were from "his man made efforts", not the working of God! I have heard just recently that Peter was good about inserting his foot in his mouth and thus Jesus knew him to be harder to "move"! Sharon said: I'm not saying Jesus saw Peter as useless...No, apparently Jesus didn't see Peter as useless.17 Jesus said to him in reply, " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Peter is the perfect example of what Jesus can accomplish through a flawed human being.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 14:23:54 GMT -5
Using your logic... On a scale of deceit, where might it then place any who ( knowingly) perpetuated the actual and/or apostolic "back to the shores of Galilee" teachings? For any who maintain this wasn't so taught, where might the scale of deceit apply for those in authority who allowed persistent, incorrect perceptions to exist and spread. ( Incorrect perceptions would apply for all of us who have testified we were taught "back to the beginning" in the actual or apostolic sense). So you think it fine to let the Master down in something which is easily controlled ? You are the one who brought the Master into the equation. I didn't say it is ever fine to let our Master down. I asked, if according to your logic, it has been, and is, okay to knowingly perpetuate or allow perpetuation of misleading information.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 14:28:55 GMT -5
Diversions aside, St Anne makes a good point. I hope Kiwi comes back and answers the question. I cannot say that there was or there was not any physical connection because I plainly don't know, so I'm not saying there was or there was not nor am I concerned in any way about that. But I can say this that the connection in the Spirit does go back to the shores of Galilee and if you don't recognise that you can't have of His Spirit. For in the sense you are driving at I have never heard nor read of any such thing preached, spoken of or written of in our fellowship it has always been in the spiritual sense. There we are pinky For in the sense you are driving at I have never heard nor read of any such thing preached, spoken of or written of in our fellowship it has always been in the spiritual sense.Sorry to inform you. You're waaaay outnumbered in those who testify otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2010 14:56:19 GMT -5
~~ Sorry, I don't agree with the Catholic teaching Peter is the ROCK which the New Testament built on. Peter is ONE of MANY rocks! which the New Testament church is build on such as Paul, James, John, Barnabas.
Eph. 2:19,20 The household of God are built upon the foundation of the APOSTLES! (ALL of apostles NOT just Peter) and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstones in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple of the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.~~ In the Greek "Peter" is Petros ("detached stone") and "rock" is petra ("bedrock") The "Bedrock" on which the church is built is 1) Christ; 2) Peter's confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. About the Rock! I believe Paul was more of a solid ROCK than Peter in many ways. Peter was a man's pleaser! afraid of what others think of himself, he was unstable sometimes. Peter was an angry unstable man prone to temper tantrums abd Paul wasn't much better imo. No wonder we have such mixed up, convoluted crazy ideas in religions today if those two are who we look to for sane ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2010 14:59:52 GMT -5
~~ Sorry, I don't agree with the Catholic teaching Peter is the ROCK which the New Testament built on. Peter is ONE of MANY rocks! which the New Testament church is build on such as Paul, James, John, Barnabas.
Eph. 2:19,20 The household of God are built upon the foundation of the APOSTLES! (ALL of apostles NOT just Peter) and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstones in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple of the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.~~ In the Greek "Peter" is Petros ("detached stone") and "rock" is petra ("bedrock") The "Bedrock" on which the church is built is 1) Christ; 2) Peter's confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. About the Rock! I believe Paul was more of a solid ROCK than Peter in many ways. Peter was a man's pleaser! afraid of what others think of himself, he was unstable sometimes. Peter was an angry unstable man prone to temper tantrums abd Paul wasn't much better imo. No wonder we have such mixed up, convoluted crazy ideas in religions today if those two are who we look to for sane ideas. So Irvine was par for the course?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 19, 2010 15:08:24 GMT -5
Peter was an angry unstable man prone to temper tantrums abd Paul wasn't much better imo. No wonder we have such mixed up, convoluted crazy ideas in religions today if those two are who we look to for sane ideas. So Irvine was par for the course? Irvine can't even start to compete in comparison to those other two.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 15:39:16 GMT -5
Sharon said: I'm not saying Jesus saw Peter as useless...No, apparently Jesus didn't see Peter as useless.17 Jesus said to him in reply, " Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Peter is the perfect example of what Jesus can accomplish through a flawed human being. ~~ Do you believe Jesus was also given the KEYS (binding/bounding) to the kingdom of heaven to the 11 apostles, Paul, Barnabas, and all of His followers as well?
~~ Do you believe Jesus was also given the KEYS (binding/bounding) to the kingdom of heaven to the 11 apostles, Paul, Barnabas, and all of His followers as well? Where in scripture does it verbatim say the 11 were given the keys as it says verbatim Peter was given the keys?
An excerpt from a response to a question...
"Peter was the first Apostle to go to the Gentiles. As the head of the Church Peter was sent by God to baptize the first Gentiles into the Church ( Acts 10). Peter announced to the first Church council, “Brothers, you know well enough that from the early days God selected me from your number to be the one from whose lips the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe” ( Acts 15:7). Then, later, Peter became the Apostle to the Jews and Paul became the Apostle to the Gentiles. “On the contrary, recognizing that I (Paul) had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised [Gentiles], just as Peter for the circumcised [Jews]” ( Galatians 2:8). No, Peter did not found the Catholic Church. Jesus founded the Church upon Peter. “I for my part declare to you, you (Peter) are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church” ( Matthew 16:18). Thus Peter was made the earthly head of the Church while Jesus is the ultimate head of the Church. “He (God) has put all things under Christ’s feet and has made him, thus exalted, head of the Church” ( Ephesians 1:22). There is no doubt that Peter had primacy over the other Apostles. The New Testament is literally filled with references showing Peter’s authority from God. Just a few of these are Peter receiving God’s blessing ( Matthew 16:17). Only Peter is given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven ( Matthew 16:19), a great honor indeed! Jesus makes Peter the shepherd of his flock ( John 21:15-17). Peter is the spokesman for the Apostles ( Matthew 16:15-16; Mark 9:5; Luke 12:41; John 6: 67-69). The Apostles are even referred to by Peter’s name ( Mark 1:36). Peter alone has the authority to have Judas replaced ( Acts 1:15-22). The other Apostles accept Jesus’ Resurrection based on Peter’s testimony ( Luke 24:34). Of all the Apostles Paul singles out Peter to go and meet with ( Galatians 1:18)."
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 15:58:53 GMT -5
Can you tell us what kind of KEYS the kingdom of heaven was Jesus about to give to Peter?
What are the KEYS according to you? Sorry, but you haven't answered my question.~~ Do you believe Jesus was also given the KEYS (binding/bounding) to the kingdom of heaven to the 11 apostles, Paul, Barnabas, and all of His followers as well?Where in scripture does it verbatim say the 11 were given the keys as it says verbatim Peter was given the keys?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Apr 19, 2010 16:09:29 GMT -5
Sorry, but you haven't answered my question.~~ Do you believe Jesus was also given the KEYS (binding/bounding) to the kingdom of heaven to the 11 apostles, Paul, Barnabas, and all of His followers as well?Where in scripture does it verbatim say the 11 were given the keys as it says verbatim Peter was given the keys? ~~ My answer is found in the question which I asked of you. What does the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven means according to you. Can you answer the question for me first. Then I will tell you my answer to your question. Nope. Not responding until you give a "yes" or "no answer to the question (twice) asked of you.
|
|