Why did Jesus choose Peter?
-
I wouldn't say the Apostle Paul is perfect but he does have the perfect track record. Paul's theology has never been corrected by any of the apostles. His theology is rock solid, whereas Peter's one need some correction from God before it is correct.
Paul is also a leader 'cos people look up to him and he has authority to educate the churches. In fact before Peter set his foot in Rome, Paul has already written to the earliest? Christians in Rome.
Paul's epistles actually suggest very strongly that the earliest church did not have bishops because his epistles were addressed to the congregation instead of the leader of the church. -
1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.Originally posted by Icemoon:I wouldn't say the Apostle Paul is perfect but he does have the perfect track record. Paul's theology has never been corrected by any of the apostles. His theology is rock solid, whereas Peter's one need some correction from God before it is correct.
Paul is also a leader 'cos people look up to him and he has authority to educate the churches. In fact before Peter set his foot in Rome, Paul has already written to the earliest? Christians in Rome.
Paul's epistles actually suggest very strongly that the earliest church did not have bishops because his epistles were addressed to the congregation instead of the leader of the church.
Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.
Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.
1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.
1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi") who serve the bishops.
1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles
Peter's teaching has never been in error as well....give me an instance -
Actually whatever you quote is useless if they cannot be tested with historical "facts". You quote Phil. 1:1, but I can quote 1 Cor and other epistles in which the address to the bishops and deacons are missing.
Now, I'm not sure when was Phil written and I've forgotten whether Phil. is a true Pauline letter in the eyes of the scholars but scholars agree that the corinthian epistles are genuine works of Paul and they are the earliest to be written, even before the gospels. However, scholars have casted doubts on the authorship of works like the Timothy pastoral letters.
I am also careful not to make the same error as you, that is the argument from silence that there were no bishops and deacons in the other churches beside Philippi.
But perhaps you'd like to tell me why was the address to the bishops and deacons missing in his other epistles?
The content is also suggestive. The church in Philippi was a good church, so to speak. The one in Corinth had loads of problems. If there are bishops and deacons in Corinth, then it begs the question what were they doing. The church seems to be in a state of lawlessness.
Actually Peter's teachings has been in error but you can always invoke the ex cathedra excuse. You can always change the rule - when to call it a teaching and when not to call it a teaching. -
Now .. how did you make that conclusion from the verse?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.
-
Once again .. how did you make that conclusion from the verse?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.
I'm not sure which church you talking about. You mentioned bishops .. so which See?
If I'm not wrong, only two churches are truly apostolic. The one in Rome and the one in Symra. -
Sorry .. the verses do not in any way suggest that.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles. -
Tell me wad teaching is in error?Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually whatever you quote is useless if they cannot be tested with historical "facts". You quote Phil. 1:1, but I can quote 1 Cor and other epistles in which the address to the bishops and deacons are missing.
Now, I'm not sure when was Phil written and I've forgotten whether Phil. is a true Pauline letter in the eyes of the scholars but scholars agree that the corinthian epistles are genuine works of Paul and they are the earliest to be written, even before the gospels. However, scholars have casted doubts on the authorship of works like the Timothy pastoral letters.
I am also careful not to make the same error as you, that is the argument from silence that there were no bishops and deacons in the other churches beside Philippi.
But perhaps you'd like to tell me why was the address to the bishops and deacons missing in his other epistles?
The content is also suggestive. The church in Philippi was a good church, so to speak. The one in Corinth had loads of problems. If there are bishops and deacons in Corinth, then it begs the question what were they doing. The church seems to be in a state of lawlessness.
Actually Peter's teachings has been in error but you can always invoke the ex cathedra excuse. You can always change the rule - when to call it a teaching and when not to call it a teaching.
There were bishops in the apostolic churches and even in the first century. Disciples of Peter and John like St Ignatius numerous times alluded to Bishops in his writing. -
Tell me what is a teaching and what is not first.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Tell me wad teaching is in error?
There were bishops in the apostolic churches and even in the first century. Disciples of Peter and John like St Ignatius numerous times alluded to Bishops in his writing.
Don't understand your point in the second paragraph.
Edit: I didn't say there were no bishops in the early church. -
1) A definitive teaching made by Peter like in Acts 15Originally posted by Icemoon:Tell me what is a teaching and what is not first.
Don't understand your point in the second paragraph.
Edit: I didn't say there were no bishops in the early church.
2) Sorry than, misintepretated ur words. -
So can I conclude Peter NEVER taught anything about gentiles following Jewish customs (whether they should follow or they need not follow)?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:1) A definitive teaching made by Peter like in Acts 15 -
It was Peter who settled the doctrinal issue on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. When Peter settled the matter, "the whole assembly kept silent." The other bishops who spoke after Peter relayed how Peter settled the matter, and spoke in union with him, just like bishops do today. Paul obeyed PeterÂ’s decision without question.Originally posted by Icemoon:So can I conclude Peter NEVER taught anything about gentiles following Jewish customs (whether they should follow or they need not follow)? -
the whole assembly kept silent because of Peter or Paul?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:It was Peter who settled the doctrinal issue on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. When Peter settled the matter, "the whole assembly kept silent." The other bishops who spoke after Peter relayed how Peter settled the matter, and spoke in union with him, just like bishops do today. Paul obeyed PeterÂ’s decision without question.
12 The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Do not make a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy leh. -
furthermore .. even if they kept silent because of Peter .. this does not prove anything.
when pple talk .. of course you keep quiet .. this is basic courtesy.
DUH. -
there are three important things: love, faith and hope
and above all, love is most important.
-
ACTS:2 vs 14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 "For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 17 'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; 18 EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy. 19 'AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW, BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE. 20 'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME. 21 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.' 22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--
Peter knew the Bible very well! He could quote old testament prophets! -
of course the Bible did not exist at that time... so ok he could quote long dead prophets, not so much as quote the bible.
-
After Peter talked...they kept silent. When you read the Greek phrase,it means the silence was the effect of Peter's definitive teaching.Originally posted by Icemoon:furthermore .. even if they kept silent because of Peter .. this does not prove anything.
when pple talk .. of course you keep quiet .. this is basic courtesy.
DUH. -
No. Jesus chose Mary Magdalene. But somehow somebody back then decided to edit the contents of the bible.
-
Like I said, what can this prove?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:After Peter talked...they kept silent. When you read the Greek phrase,it means the silence was the effect of Peter's definitive teaching.
Do you suppose when James spoke, everyone bochup him? -
When paul spoke, there were debate etc etc. When eter spoke, debate ceased...all accepted.Originally posted by Icemoon:Like I said, what can this prove?
Do you suppose when James spoke, everyone bochup him? -
Where?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:When paul spoke, there were debate etc etc. When eter spoke, debate ceased...all accepted.6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
Your argument is weak because
12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon[a] has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18that have been known for ages.[c]
19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
1. The NIV translates verse 12 to indicate Paul was the reason for their silence.
2. No sign that when Paul spoke, there were debates.
3. James did speak last and he spoke quite strongly ("It is my judgment"). -
4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.Originally posted by Icemoon:Your argument is weak because
1. The NIV translates verse 12 to indicate Paul was the reason for their silence.
2. No sign that when Paul spoke, there were debates.
3. James did speak last and he spoke quite strongly ("It is my judgment").
8
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9
He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10
Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11
On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they." 5
12
The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.
Translation difference i supposed. Here it says they fall silence after Peter spoke.
2) I agree
3) He says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews. So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. (Scripture catholic) -
1. They fell silence AFTER Peter spoke? THEN WHAT HAPPENED DURING PETER'S SPEECH?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Translation difference i supposed. Here it says they fall silence after Peter spoke.
2) I agree
3) He says "it is my judgment." The Greek here (ego krino) means that James was giving a personal opinion about a pastoral issue, and recommends that the Gentiles obey the laws of Noah so as to more easily fraternize with the Jews. So we see that Peter is the one who rules definitively on the question of doctrine, and all kept silent. His bishops then spoke in favor of his teaching, acknowledging that Peter was indeed the authority in the Church. No one questions Peter's judgment. Then we have James who speaks in favor of Peter's teaching by giving an opinion on a pastoral issue. Hardly a challenge to the authority of Peter. (Scripture catholic)
2. So what was your point originally?
3. Actually how does this prove Peter is authority in the Church? IF he is no.1 .. well why wasn't him bishop of Jerusalem?
-
3) He gave the idea and no one contested to it.Originally posted by Icemoon:1. They fell silence AFTER Peter spoke? THEN WHAT HAPPENED DURING PETER'S SPEECH?
2. So what was your point originally?
3. Actually how does this prove Peter is authority in the Church? IF he is no.1 .. well why wasn't him bishop of Jerusalem?
Why should he be a bishop there???? -
I don't think Paul's knowledge was at all what was needed. it was Peter's love for Jesus that made him truly the leader of the apostles, though of course he was not necessarily superior to the other apostles in all respects.
also, remember the parable of the prodigal son?