Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Peter was not called the rock, Cephas means small hard pebble, which was a good description of Peter before the Holy Spirit came on them at penticost, and transformed their ministries.
The rock was Christ himself, as is supported by the rest of the new testament (the stone cut without hands).
Well.....let's see now. Our Lord tell Peter and the other eleven not to preach among the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5-6].....but you folks insist that Peter did. Peter is never shown to be in Rome but does indeed admit to being in Babylon [1 Peter 5:13] which is where a large population of Israelites lived....descendants of those of the dispersion [II Kings 25:8-11]. This happens to be one of the places The Lord told him to go....to the Lost Sheep of Israel!
Peter then writes to other Israelites of the dispersion along the shores of the Black Sea: [1 Peter 1:1-2] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
The Greek for "Strangers scattered" is [3927. parepidemos (par-ep-id'-ay-mos) An alien alongside or a resident foreigner] [1290. diaspora (dee-as-por-ah') An Israelite resident in Gentile countries]
So scripture itself shows Peter among the Israelites in Babylon writing to Israelites in Asia Minor but never shows Peter in Rome! I guess you just have to ask yourself....if it was so important for Peter to have been there and done that......why didn't scripture even hint at it? The answer to that question is: It wasn't important to God....only to some people's false tradition!
Paul reiterates the assignments that The Lord gave them both in [Galatians 2:7]: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. For those of you in Rio Linda this means......"Paul, go to the Gentiles! Peter, go to the Israelites!"
In fact Paul is even told to stay out of Peter's territory: [Acts 16:6-8] Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them no. And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas. In other words....."Paul....stay out of there!"
You folks have a very weak case and it's about time you gave up the charade. Peter was never in Rome!
7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
--Galatians 2:7-10
There were “gentile “ cities in Galilee near Nazareth and others on Lake Galilee, and to the west of Galilee on the seacoast. Samaria was south of Galilee, between it and Judea. This was, after all, during his Galilean ministry.
And how do you know that this :propoganda is incorrect?” The article does not address these claims.
Is this one of the reliable letters we have from Ignatius?
Was the command of [Matthew 10:5-6] ever remanded? No! Paul is still emphasizing the separation of evangelistic territories in [Galatians 2:7-8] in 53 A.D. This happens to be twenty some odd years after the resurrection! You folks need to take the blinders off.....right now!
Peter was never in Rome!
Because Peter had been in Asia, and had been a missionary in Asia, he was in Babylon in Iraq? Look at your map. From the site of Babylon to Asia Minor is a long way, five or six hundred miles, and in those days not part of the Roman Empire. Why would he not move on to Rome, anyway, since that was the capitol of the Empire? Paul certain aimed to go there after his visit to Jerusalem. Why should not Peter have gone? because it is not recorded in the Bible? Much is not recorded in the Bible. Indeed, if one reads Acts, we have only the sketchiest information about twenty years of Paul’s life, even as Luke focuses on him. Not until after he returns to Jerusalem for the last time do we get any detailed information.
Excellent, historically accurate, Biblically accurate, linguistically accurate, logically accurate document.
Thanks.
Particularly amongst other paragraphs:
When Jesus talked about this rock, the Greek term He used was petra. Petra is a feminine noun which means a massive cliff-rock, like the one overshadowing Caesarea Philippi. The word for Peter here is petros, a masculine noun which means a small stone or pebble. Jesus said, “You are Peter- You are Petros. You are a small stone, a small pebble just like the small stones or pebbles in this stream shooting forth from the base of the huge cliff-rock that overshadowed the town of Caesarea Philippi. Upon the ‘petra,’ upon that cliff from which you were broken off, I will build my church.” In other words, Jesus is this massive cliffrock upon which the church would be built on. The church would not be built upon Peter, but upon Peter’s confession which was, “You are the Christ, the Son of the God, the Living One.” Peter’s confession was on the rock itself. Jesus did not say to Peter, upon YOU I will build My church, but, “upon this rock,” and the word “this” is pointing to Himself, of whom Peter confessed when he said, “Thou art Christ.” On the basis of who Jesus is, the church was going to be built.
The commnad had to do with the Galilean ministry. Why do you insist on applying it to events twenty years later? As for the evangelical dispute, was this not simply because Peter got a warmer reception among the Jews? Paul was a radical and his success was mainly among the gentiles. Division of labor. This is what happens when one attempts to dismiss all evidence except what is contained in the Scriptural record. Scripture gives us only a few hundred pages about events extending over a whole generation and concerning the lives of thousands of people over a region half the size of the United States. Face it: we don’t get anything like a complete history.
Because The Lord told him not to go there! What part of [Matthew 10:5-6] don't you understand? It says "These twelve". Other disciples came later and it was their job to go to the Gentiles. Paul, Timothy, Barnabas etc......but the original twelve were told to stay away from the Gentiles. You are arguing with scripture.....not me!
Why should not Peter have gone? because it is not recorded in the Bible? Much is not recorded in the Bible.
O.K. You tell me! Why is Paul so emphatic about their individual responsibilities in [Galatians 2:7]? If it had been O.K. for Peter to have gone preaching to the Gentiles why is Paul reminding everyone that his job (Peter's) is among the Israelites.....20 years later?
You can try to spin it all you want but the simple answer is....and always has been.... that you folks picked the wrong horse. You should have called Paul your first Pope and then your shaky ground would have been a little more firm.
Don't get me wrong. Paul would not have participated in such a sham either....but at least you folks wouldn't look so silly trying to convince the uninformed of your false traditions!
Does not the Scripture you quote relate to Jesus’ instruction to the disciples relate to the Galilean ministry? Taken absolutely, the Church would never have grown beyond Galilee, but the other Scriptures you offer tells us it had been extended to Asia, and not by Paul’s work alone. Make up your minds.
For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" -- Psalm 18:2,31 "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower...
The rock is not Peter; the rock is "our God."
They changed the words...again.
**Once there was a Pope named Peter?**
Absolutely!
The first leader of the Church, Pope, was St. Peter — chosen by Christ himself.
Can’t argue with that since it’s in the Bible.
It's in the job description.
**I guess Strong’s concordance is worthless? **
Not really, but it is from a Protestant point of view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.