Apostolic Succession ??

[St Columcille]

When Jesus first met Simon, Jesus called him Peter.
But it was not until Peter confirmed it to Jesus, that he knew who Jesus was ? then Jesus said that it was the Father that revealed that to Peter ? there upon Jesus said the following to him.

I am the type of person who likes it where the horse is in front of the cart instead of the cart in front of the horse. Apostolic success should be laid down prior to discussing the primacy of Peter, for the primacy issue is related to the perogative of honor among the popes/patriarches of the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Churches.

 

[lawrance]

I am the type of person who likes it where the horse is in front of the cart instead of the cart in front of the horse. Apostolic success should be laid down prior to discussing the primacy of Peter, for the primacy issue is related to the perogative of honor among the popes/patriarches of the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Churches.

In the Bible it shows that it's a fact that when Jesus 1st encountered Simon, Jesus calls him Pete then the next day Jesus went down to the fishermen and said to follow him, then Jesus went looking for the rest he came upon Nathanael and and called him a true Israel "one with whom their is no Gaul" "under the Fig Tree" and nathanael know directly who Jesus is ect straight up ? and all this the 1st time Jesus meat them in the flesh.
So he knew all of his own as he is God ? but when Simon came to understand who Jesus really was. that is when Jesus made the official declaration to him.
And that is the way it went.
Regard less of anything other, horse or cart.
Do you reject that what i have just said is wrong. Col

Now if we want to talk about the Primacy of the Popes position in the Church i would say that a lot of people have very little comprehension about what the indept position is all about. and that protestants have it all about 90% wrong as there posistion on it is just a simplistic view that is conjured up with no depth at all. mainly just slander and utter stupidity.

 

[St Columcille]

In the Bible it shows that it's a fact that when Jesus 1st encountered Simon, Jesus calls him Pete then the next day Jesus went down to the fishermen and said to follow him, then Jesus went looking for the rest he came upon Nathanael and and called him a true Israel "one with whom their is no Gaul" "under the Fig Tree" and nathanael know directly who Jesus is ect straight up ? and all this the 1st time Jesus meat them in the flesh.
So he knew all of his own as he is God ? but when Simon came to understand who Jesus really was. that is when Jesus made the official declaration to him.
And that is the way it went.
Regard less of anything other, horse or cart.
Do you reject that what i have just said is wrong. Col

Now if we want to talk about the Primacy of the Popes position in the Church i would say that a lot of people have very little comprehension about what the indept position is all about. and that protestants have it all about 90% wrong as there posistion on it is just a simplistic view that is conjured up with no depth at all. mainly just slander and utter stupidity.

When I look through the Gospel of Matthew, Simon is called in the passage 4.18. In the next passage that I see regarding Simon in Matthew 10.2 where Jesus sends the twelve out. In Matthew 16.16 does Christ change his name from Simon to Peter.

 

[lawrance]

When I look through the Gospel of Matthew, Simon is called in the passage 4.18. In the next passage that I see regarding Simon in Matthew 10.2 where Jesus sends the twelve out. In Matthew 16.16 does Christ change his name from Simon to Peter.

Read John 1 and at 1:42 yes it is so is it not !

Mat 16:18 and i say to thee, thou art Peter, ect. yes he does.

 

[St Columcille]

Read John 1 and at 1:42 yes it is so is it not !

Mat 16:18 and i say to thee, thou art Peter, ect. yes he does.

Considering that the accounts differ in respect to Christ giving Simon a new name as Peter only reflects the style of writing that considers the purpose of the author. The theology of John and the theology of Matthew differ in respect to the audience. Matthew's theology is attempting to point to Christ as the Messiah and is directed toward an audience of Jews, whereas the purpose of John is to show Christ's divinity and bridges a gap for both Jew and Greek. It is remarkable how John's opening of his Gospel mixes two ideas of the mystical sense of "logos" as that as the spoken word of God creating all the world and the idea of the Greek's logos reflecting a divine wisdom. John's account of Peter's confession is also different from Matthew in John 6.67-71. It is also interesting to note that in most of John's passage, Peter is not Peter, but Simon Peter. Even Luke calls Peter Simon at first in Luke 5 and then in one place in that passage he is called Simon Peter. Later on after Peter's confession, Simon is dropped. The confession of Peter happens about Luke 9.20. The other passages that preceed it like Luke 6.14 calles him Simon when he is numbered. Luke 12.41, well after the confession, lists Peter and not by the name Simon Peter or Simon or Simon (whom He named Peter). Considering that the events of Scripture are not always in chronological order, due to the emphasis of the writer as well as the writings being written well after the events took place, it would seem that the Synoptic Gospel Accounts would also support the name change to just Peter and not Simon Peter until the confession that Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ. At any rate, I do not consider the differences of the time frame to be a significant obsticle. The individual testimonies were not premeditated and so some accounts of eyewitness testimony will not be in collusion.

 

[lawrance]

Considering that the accounts differ in respect to Christ giving Simon a new name as Peter only reflects the style of writing that considers the purpose of the author. The theology of John and the theology of Matthew differ in respect to the audience. Matthew's theology is attempting to point to Christ as the Messiah and is directed toward an audience of Jews, whereas the purpose of John is to show Christ's divinity and bridges a gap for both Jew and Greek. It is remarkable how John's opening of his Gospel mixes two ideas of the mystical sense of "logos" as that as the spoken word of God creating all the world and the idea of the Greek's logos reflecting a divine wisdom. John's account of Peter's confession is also different from Matthew in John 6.67-71. It is also interesting to note that in most of John's passage, Peter is not Peter, but Simon Peter. Even Luke calls Peter Simon at first in Luke 5 and then in one place in that passage he is called Simon Peter. Later on after Peter's confession, Simon is dropped. The confession of Peter happens about Luke 9.20. The other passages that preceed it like Luke 6.14 calles him Simon when he is numbered. Luke 12.41, well after the confession, lists Peter and not by the name Simon Peter or Simon or Simon (whom He named Peter). Considering that the events of Scripture are not always in chronological order, due to the emphasis of the writer as well as the writings being written well after the events took place, it would seem that the Synoptic Gospel Accounts would also support the name change to just Peter and not Simon Peter until the confession that Jesus was the Son of God, the Christ. At any rate, I do not consider the differences of the time frame to be a significant obsticle. The individual testimonies were not premeditated and so some accounts of eyewitness testimony will not be in collusion.

There is no confusion at all is there as it's all straightforward like i said it is.

 

[St Columcille]

There is no confusion at all is there as it's all straightforward like i said it is.

I am under the impression that we are in agreement, no? I just don't want to go farther into the primacy of Peter without first establishing what and how "apostolic succession" is actually carried out. It is in my eyes far better to carry on a discussion in the form of an investigative approach rather than a debate.

 

[lawrance]

I am under the impression that we are in agreement, no? I just don't want to go farther into the primacy of Peter without first establishing what and how "apostolic succession" is actually carried out. It is in my eyes far better to carry on a discussion in the form of an investigative approach rather than a debate.

Yes i do think we agree.

Jesus has given authority to him as a Rock.

Was not Joseph a rock, a fruit tree, Shepherd, Israel. Gen 49 : 22 - 26

Is Moses a Rock ?

 

[St Columcille]

Yes i do think we agree.

Jesus has given authority to him as a Rock.

Was not Joseph a rock, a fruit tree, Shepherd, Israel. Gen 49 : 22 - 26

Is Moses a Rock ?

There might be corelations. If so, it would be better to look into the Septuagint and see how the wording in the Gospels related to Peter or Petra is used. However, considering the masculine of Petros and the feminine of Petras, how it is rendered in the Septaugint might show a connection. It is fairly easy to see in John when Christ says before Abraham existed I AM, the Septuagint rendering in Exodus of the divine name is the same in the John passage. Ego emi. Considering the divine name hasn't been spoken of in Hebrew with the YHWH or JHVH with no consonants, I find the reference difficult to demonstrate in the Kione Greek the Hebrew divine name other than using the Septuagint.

 

[St Columcille]

Yes i do think we agree.

Jesus has given authority to him as a Rock.

Was not Joseph a rock, a fruit tree, Shepherd, Israel. Gen 49 : 22 - 26

Is Moses a Rock ?

I was doing a research on the passage you gave in verse 24 and found that In the Hebrew "rock" was translated from the following word:אֶבֶן (ʾeben) stone.



However, what I see in the LXX is the following word:

κατισχύω

(s. ἰσχύω) impf. κατίσχυον; fut. κατισχύσω; 1 aor. κατίσχυσα (in various senses relating to display of strength: ‘be strong, powerful, gain the ascendancy’: Soph.+; oft. in later wr. and in LXX; En 104:6; PsSol 2:7; Test12Patr, EpArist; Jos., Ant. 14, 357, but scarcely at all in ins, pap [PGM 13, 797]) intr.

to have the strength or capability to obtain an advantage, be dominant, prevail abs. (Polyb. 11, 13, 3; Ex 17:11; En 104:6) κατίσχυον αἱ φωναὶ αὐτῶν their voices prevailed Lk 23:23 (Antig. Car. 152 κατίσχυκεν ἡ φήμη). W. inf. foll. be able, be in a position 21:36.

to have the capability to defeat, win a victory over w. gen. (Dio Chrys. 12 [13], 4 al.; Aelian, HA 5, 19; Wsd 7:30; Jer 15:18; Jos., Bell. 2, 464 κατισχύσας πλειόνων=conqueror of a superior force; TestReub 4:11) πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς (i.e. τῆς ἐκκλησίας) Mt 16:18 (s. on πύλη a). πάσης πονηρίας Hv 2, 3, 2. κ. τῶν ἔργων τοῦ διαβόλου win the victory over the works of the devil Hm 12, 6, 4.—DELG s.v. ἰσχύς. M-M. TW.



I see no mention of "rock" within the septuagent in this passage and so do not think there is a correlation to match Simon Peter with Joseph. In fact, I'd say that the Hebrew "eben" is not referencing Joseph at all, but God. I, therefore, conclude that when the Gospel was written in Kione Greek that "petros" finds no correlationship with Joseph or any other. However, I did find in reading Dr. Thayer's Lexicon in his entry in "petra" and not in "petros" that he references two Hebrew words for "rock" where "petra" was the translated word in the Septuagint, but it is not the same as "eben."
<p dir="LTR" align="LEFT">22Υἱὸς ηὐξημένος Ιωσηφ, υἱὸς ηὐξημένος ζηλωτός, υἱός μου νεώτατος, πρός με ἀνάστρεψον.

[sup]<p dir="LTR" align="LEFT">23[/sup]εἰς ὃν διαβουλευόμενοι ἐλοιδόρουν, καὶ ἐνεῖχον αὐτῷ κύριοι τοξευμάτων,

[sup]24

[/sup] καὶ συνετρίβη μετὰ κράτους τὰ τόξα αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐξελύθη τὰ νεῦρα βραχιόνων χειρῶν αὐτῶν διὰ χεῖρα δυνάστου Ιακωβ, ἐκεῖθεν ὁ κατισχύσας Ισραηλ,

[sup]25

[/sup] παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦ πατρός σου, καὶ ἐβοήθησέν σοι ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐμὸς καὶ εὐλόγησέν σε εὐλογίαν οὐρανοῦ ἄνωθεν καὶ εὐλογίαν γῆς ἐχούσης πάντα, ἕνεκεν εὐλογίας μαστῶν καὶ μήτρας,



22 Joseph is a fruitful plant near a spring whose tendrils reach over the wall. [sup]23[/sup]　Archers in their hostility drew their bows and attacked him. [sup]24[/sup]　But their bows were broken by a mighty One, the sinews of their arms were snapped by the power of the Mighty One of Jacob, by the Name of the Stone of Israel, [sup]25[/sup]　the God of your father who assists you, El Shaddai who blesses you:" (NAB. Gen.49.22-25.)

 

[lawrance]

A Rock and the Rock ?
Are we in Jesus of the Rock in some form.
Build upon the Rock.
Was not Joseph ? as 'of' the Rock and Moses.
The reference of Rock or Stone is the same concept something solid vs sand.
The father is a Rock the Son is a Rock the Spirit is a Rock in a sense as they are not like sand, as the Rock is a comprehension of solid foundations.
We Christians should have a firm foundation in Christ, as we are as one in Christ, if we are not we will be as sand.
So why can't Peter have a position that was given to him and he did not ask for it.
This position is not really that he is at the top of the heap so to speak, but the position is with in and it all lays upon the foundations of Christ. and we all as Christians have the same duty but we are not the head.

 

[St Columcille]

A Rock and the Rock ?
Are we in Jesus of the Rock in some form.
Build upon the Rock.
Was not Joseph ? as 'of' the Rock and Moses.
The reference of Rock or Stone is the same concept something solid vs sand.
The father is a Rock the Son is a Rock the Spirit is a Rock in a sense as they are not like sand, as the Rock is a comprehension of solid foundations.
We Christians should have a firm foundation in Christ, as we are as one in Christ, if we are not we will be as sand.
So why can't Peter have a position that was given to him and he did not ask for it.
This position is not really that he is at the top of the heap so to speak, but the position is with in and it all lays upon the foundations of Christ. and we all as Christians have the same duty but we are not the head.

When I switched to more contextual bible study from the topical study, I am more concerned with tying something directly in the text itself. So if Jesus quotes Isaiah, Daniel, or the Psalms, that is the time I jump to another passage for clarity. Two different examples in point...

The first example I already used, with the passage in John where Jesus says before Abraham was, I AM. The fact that the Jews understood his context that he was making a claim to divinity demonstrates the LXX "ego emi." Jesus didn't quote Exodus, but the evidence is rather pointed both in the reaction to attempt to stone him as well as the Greek both in John and in Exodus.

The second example, when Jesus quotes Psalms also in John regarding "ye are gods," a look into the passage demonstrates the wit of Jesus, for the Psalms passage was saying to unjust judges that they will die like men and so was insulting those to whom judged Jesus wrongly.



If you want to make the jump that the "rock" either "petra" or "petros" applies to an Old Testament passage, I should think you might find ample evidence in the Septuagint to make a satifying demonstration. However, what I have already quoted before eliminates Gen. 49.22-26 as a viable connection to one of the two words for "rock" in Greek. Granted, there are passages in the O.T. that does contain the translated word for "petra" as Dr. Thayer's English-Greek Lexicon gives the Hebrew word in that entry.
I just do not find it that persuasive as a contextual interpretation; that is the drawback to topical interpretations as it can mesh two unrelated passages perhaps closely similiar but not "on the mark" as a contextual word for word rendering or internal quote within a given textual reading.

 

[lawrance]

Does the water flow from the Rock.

 

[St Columcille]

Does the water flow from the Rock.

In Exodus 17.6 it reads "Behold, I stand there before thou come, on the rock (πέτρα--petras) in Choreb, and though shalt smite the rock, and water shall come out from it, adn the people shall drink. And Moses did so before the sons of Israel." (Septuagint, trans. Sir Brenton Lancelot.) 6

ὅδε ἐγὼ ἕστηκα πρὸ τοῦ σὲ ἐκεῖ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας ἐν Χωρηβ, καὶ πατάξεις τὴν πέτραν, καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ἐξ αὐτῆς ὕδωρ, καὶ πίεται ὁ λαός μου. ἐποίησεν δὲ Μωυσῆς οὕτως ἐναντίον τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ.





In the above case, it is literal, also found in the passage of Numbers 20.11, where Moses was commanded to speak to the rock and in dissobedience he struck it twice. If you are using it as figurative language, I am not certain as to what biblical passage to look under at the moment. But in either case of the above passages, the play on words of "Petros" and "Petra" has no parrallel in the Old Testament Septuagint passages.

 

[lawrance]

In Exodus 17.6 it reads "Behold, I stand there before thou come, on the rock (πέτρα--petras) in Choreb, and though shalt smite the rock, and water shall come out from it, adn the people shall drink. And Moses did so before the sons of Israel." (Septuagint, trans. Sir Brenton Lancelot.) 6

ὅδε ἐγὼ ἕστηκα πρὸ τοῦ σὲ ἐκεῖ ἐπὶ τῆς πέτρας ἐν Χωρηβ, καὶ πατάξεις τὴν πέτραν, καὶ ἐξελεύσεται ἐξ αὐτῆς ὕδωρ, καὶ πίεται ὁ λαός μου. ἐποίησεν δὲ Μωυσῆς οὕτως ἐναντίον τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ.





In the above case, it is literal, also found in the passage of Numbers 20.11, where Moses was commanded to speak to the rock and in dissobedience he struck it twice. If you are using it as figurative language, I am not certain as to what biblical passage to look under at the moment. But in either case of the above passages, the play on words of "Petros" and "Petra" has no parrallel in the Old Testament Septuagint passages.

I would not get to tied up with the Petros Petra thing. as we should understand what the purpose of Rock- Stone is all about with spiritual understanding and if seen in a worldly point of view it just goes no where. it's like a dog chasing it's tail.

The spirit moved over the water, and Christ walked on the water and Peter could but ?

Can two people can look at the same thing and see somthing totally different.

 

[St Columcille]

I would not get to tied up with the Petros Petra thing. as we should understand what the purpose of Rock- Stone is all about with spiritual understanding and if seen in a worldly point of view it just goes no where. it's like a dog chasing it's tail.

The spirit moved over the water, and Christ walked on the water and Peter could but ?

Can two people can look at the same thing and see somthing totally different.

Sorry, it has been awhile since I posted last. Been busy with the National Guard and the SFO.

I am only saying that if you are going to make a connection between two passages, that it actually has something to link them together like word usage or an actual reference. I would not find it persuasive to say, "I think it means X" when there is no "X" in the passage. Hence, my going to the trouble to find the O.T. passage in the Septuagint and finding that the word used for "rock" is not there. When I looked at the Hebrew word used for Rock in Dr. Thayer's Lexicon, even that word was not present in the Hebrew text. Exactly how many words are used to distinguish a "rock," if there was ever a Hebrew thesaurus, it seems important to me that the degree and specificity in making a connection between two passages would have the same word usage rather than a varient.

 

[lawrance]

Sorry, it has been awhile since I posted last. Been busy with the National Guard and the SFO.

I am only saying that if you are going to make a connection between two passages, that it actually has something to link them together like word usage or an actual reference. I would not find it persuasive to say, "I think it means X" when there is no "X" in the passage. Hence, my going to the trouble to find the O.T. passage in the Septuagint and finding that the word used for "rock" is not there. When I looked at the Hebrew word used for Rock in Dr. Thayer's Lexicon, even that word was not present in the Hebrew text. Exactly how many words are used to distinguish a "rock," if there was ever a Hebrew thesaurus, it seems important to me that the degree and specificity in making a connection between two passages would have the same word usage rather than a varient.

Yes we would like to think so but thats the way it is.