₦airaland Forum

malvisguy212:
God bless you my brother.

Amen; and you too.

vooks:
I doubt it was. Next question?

It's alright.

vooks:
Verse 4 is your key. I have heard repetition does wonders in teaching/education so allow me to repaste the verse here;

Isaiah 14:4 (KJV)
That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say,

If you have trouble with KJV feel free to request any other version of your choice

Alright thanks; was that the name of the king of Babylon?

vooks:
Who is whom?

As you answer that, you need humility in admitting Isaiah is all about taunting Babylon and its King. Obtuseness and digression won't wash with me. At the very least scripturally rebut what I said

From your opinion / studies, educate us on the identity of Lucifer mentioned in Isaiah 14.

vooks:
1. Nowhere does scripture call Satan Lucifer

Alright who is he then?

vooks:
Tradition attempts to fit Satan here....TRADITION and poor exegesis. The subject is clearly human

[b] Isaiah 14:4-13King James Version (KJV)

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

5 The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:[/b]

Why the mention of Lucifer in vs 12 and the obvious use of etherealities in vs 13?

vooks:
Tradition attempts to fit Satan here....TRADITION and poor exegesis. The subject is clearly human

No problem.

JMAN05:
Jesus in his HUMAN nature also said that I and my Father are one.

Just as the Father called the Son God:
But to the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice.
Hebrews 1:8

likewise in Isaiah 9

BERNIMOORE:
you will agree with me that Satan was not mentioned throughout the verses you quoted above, ''Thou hart'' or ''thou art'' was said to be an annoited cherub

Even though we have more than one Cherub in Eden garden then.
◄ Genesis 3:24 ►
''he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life''.

Indeed.

But the reference cannot be mistaken.

A similar passage is found in Isaiah 14:12-14
At least we know who it was in whom iniquity was found.

Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;
every precious stone was thy covering,
the sardius, topaz, and the diamond,
the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper,
the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold:
the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes
was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so:
thou wast upon the holy mountain of God;
thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created,
till iniquity was found in thee.
Ezekiel 28:13,14,15

This passage ultimately refers to satan as a cherub, once in a class of the living creatures closest to the Throne of God:

Psalm 80:1
Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel,
thou that leadest Joseph like a flock;
thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.

Ubenedictus:
and their debate was brought to an end

Thanks to the Spirit Who leads into all truth, and the unity among the apostles, elders and church against the error of the sect of the pharisees.

i never disputed d fact that d spirit is in charge, when catholic discuss infalibility they must as a rule admit that d holy spirit is in charge. I do not dispute it, it is a fact. D question is how did d holyspirit put an end to d debate? It is thru peter.

Through the Apostles and elders.

letter to d galatians and d council in jerusalem which happened first?

Of course the letter to the Galatians else why did Paul not quote the communique to the pharisees? Besides, the scenario described by Paul in Galatians 2:1-5 fits perfectly with Acts 15:1,2

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you
Galatians 2:1-5

One of the reasons they went to Jerusalem is the second highlighted but already, by Revelation of the Spirit (not Peter's instruction), they opposed the error.

Ubenedictus:
they were in one acord after they had debated heatedly.

The pharisees were the opposing side, not the apostles and elders. That has been shown to you already.

how did they get to be of one accord? At the bging there was no one accord! The agreements only flowed after peter spoke!

Acts 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Those were the dissenters.

i already explain this, in d council peter said "we believe..." in a place where people had varied opinion, he claimed to speak for all! Nobody stood up to say i disagree, not euen d pharisees! He ended d debate, James said as symeon has spoken! His teaching is unchallenged an form d basis for whatever will b james judgement. Peter didnt need to conduct a census or ask 4 agreement b4 saying "we believe...".

Peter said what he said because he knew the other apostles and elders already believed this!

Else why did Paul and Barnabas oppose them sans the council? In fact Paul called the purveyors of that teaching false brethren and from the tone of 2 Corinth and Galatians, you can tell there were some of the sect of the Pharisees that still continued the error!

good peter just ate wit d jews and baptised them even though some seemed against it, he had recieve a new revelation and even d xtians came that he might explain and teach d new directive he is following. He immediately did. His revelation is correct whether or not they assent to it.

They did not come to be tutored, they confronted him and he had to explain himself.

Ubenedictus:
actually what peter said was contrary to d know scriptures, d know scripture was d old testament and it proscribes circumcision, peter said lay no burden! He said that without alluding to any scripture and james certainly did not try to correct him instead he said 'as peter has spoken'!

What Peter said was that salvation is not by circumcision hence why burden the gentiles with what is not their business (since they are not Abraham's biological descendants) this is in agreement with the Word:Jesus NEVER alluded to keeping the law as a prerequisite for salvation and that was Peter's stress!

Pauls own contribution was interesting because he didnt try to instruct anyone he and barnabas simply went on relating their experiences!

Just as Peter related his. Besides, to show that the Spirit is the principal Figure, Paul had already opposed the error before Acts 15. Think of it!!! Paul a hardcore pharisee but was converted and did not attempt to circumcise the gentiles!!! It was not as though Peter was correcting a mistake Paul was making, rather, it was a confirmation of what the Spirit had already Inspired Paul to forbid because: SALVATION IS BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH! So, the letter would not really be a surprise to Paul's converts because he had already taught them the centrality of faith in salvation.

It was peter who decleared "we believe". And brought d heated debate to an end. D pharisee didnt ask him were is dat in d bible? D bible is d only authority how dare u teach doctrine without it.

The pharisees were new to the concept of salvation by faith but they obtained it so. Besides, can you show me what portion of the Scriptures commands free Gentiles (not Israelites) to be circumcised which Peter contradicted? And, did Israel attempt circumcising the men of those nations that they did not kill but brought to subjection?

how does this concern d discussion? Paul went to jerusalem to ensure his teaching was in tandem with others, he was approved.


On a different not it is interest dat paul call peter an apostle to d jews even though d said peter was d one who opened d door for d gentiles.

That was their perception. Philip had preached and baptised the Ethiopian Eunuch before Peter went to Cornelius' house!

plappville:
Ok. So God doea not curse anyone then? Is it the fault of the child then?

I did not say God does not curse anyone. (some who got cursed asked for it.) However, The descendants of Ishmael, like all men are born with a depraved nature and once such reaches age of accountability , becomes responsible for their actions and choices.

Ubenedictus:
it is interesting dat u note this point. D apostles nd elders had a council were there was heated argument, and at the end they wrotd 'it seem gud to d holyspirit and to us...' they belive their heated council was led by d spirit and thus had d power to make laws for d church. Pretty interesting

The dissenters were mentioned:
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Acts 15:5
Not the apostles but some pharisees! They had believed but like Simon the sorcerer still had issues!

Besides, you may make fun but thank God they sans your bias knew where the Inspiration for their decision came from- not ANY man but the Spirit!

lol, cant u see that d passage that was quoted has nothing to do wit d eating of unclean animals and circumcision, d passage has no link to d laws dat were made. The bible shows us where those laws come from.

The passage James referred to was to buttress the fact that the Gospel was meant for the Gentiles too:
Acts 15:14,15a
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Act 15:8-11 it was based on peter teaching not to lay any burder on them based on his xperience dat they had been saved and have d spirit. Both peter and paul in acts 15 related personal experiences not scripture.

Yes and none of those experiences were relayed in the letter!

The laws made in Jerusalem certainly had the traditions (teaching) of some apostle even witout outright scriptural backing.

The bone of contention was - NO CIRCUMCISION AS A CONDITION FOR SALVATION and Paul already knew this (also by Inspiration Galatians 2:4-6) hence the contention with those who said so (Acts 15:2)

Ubenedictus:
Three sub-points:
1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew
16:15-19).

What Peter said agreed with Paul and Barnabas' testimony and also agreed with the earlier prophecies! No sweeping fiat from any man was final!

Besides, James reference to Peter does not suggest a belittling of the testimony of others. If Peter had said something contrary to scripture, he would have been corrected like Paul had to do when Peter acted contrary to the truth! Whither your unique authority!

The tenor of your post suggests that Paul had no right rebuking Peter because the latter had a unique authority when even Paul said:

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
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;
8 (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

In vain do we find Paul alluding to ANY unique authority handed to ANY apostle over the others! In fact Peter was even the one who mentioned that Paul was given some revelations which were hard to be understood!!! Now if he was the 'head' (whatever you mean by that), we should shudder that he was bypassed at this point!

2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the
troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is
depicted in a collegial manner

Rather I will say it was because they were with one accord under the Spirit's headship and they could therefore say:
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, Acts 15;28a

And that they were in one accord see:
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 and they wrote letters by them after this manner;

[b]The apostles and elders and brethren [/b]send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Acts 15:22,23
Again, NOBODY was singled out like you are doing!

. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18.
Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled
churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given
the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council

Shed more light on this piece stating clearly:
Where Peter acted alone and the others recognising that authority respected sans questioning.


P.S. The scenario below does not agree with Peter having a 'unique authority'

Now the apostles (special messengers) and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard [with astonishment] that the Gentiles (heathen) also had received and accepted and welcomed the Word of God [the doctrine concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God].
2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party [certain Jewish Christians] found fault with him [separating themselves from him in a hostile spirit, opposing and disputing and contending with him],
3 Saying, Why did you go to uncircumcised men and [even] eat with them?
4 But Peter began [at the beginning] and narrated and explained to them step by step [the whole list of events]. He said:
5 I was in the town of Joppa praying, and [falling] in a trance I saw a vision of something coming down from heaven, like a huge sheet lowered by the four corners; and it descended until it came to me.
Acts 11:1-5

He had to explain himself and thankfully he was led by the Spirit - the One that truly represents and reveals Christ to, in and through the believers

The Only One that was sent In Christ's Name, Who bears and reveals His Name is He that was mentioned in Revelation 22:17a
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. (Bride = Church)

Ubenedictus:
ACT 15:7, it show that the was a heated debate in d council, peter stood up and spoke, after dat the arguement ended, nobody raised any objection again.


you forgot this passage
act 15:14
simon has just explained

put simply even james conclusion was based upon the unobjected conclusion of peter.

The problem I was trying to address was the error brought up by Jolliano. Besides, Peter spoke (vs 7), Paul and Barnabas also spoke (in vs 12) and James drew the conclusion. No superiority here!!!

It is instructive that:
1. The Holy Spirit superintended the meeting and was given the recognition and Priority in mention Acts 15:28

2. The guidance was subjected to Scriptural test before adoption:
Acts 15:15,16
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

3. Hence no teaching can supersede/substitute or stand at par in authority with the Scriptures

plappville:
Ishmael Cursed?

The Angel of God gives a pronouncement about the child in Hagars womb.

(Genesis 16:10-12 ) 10 “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”


11 “You will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has hear of your misery.”


12 “He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”

Did God cursed Ishmael Seeing what is happening today. You will conclude that The so-called Arab people are cursed through Ishmael they kill others and also kill themselves. People hate them because they hate others. They like violence. Thier children live and grow up in a violent environment. They see nothing wrong in it. What exactly is this statement from God . Curse or blessing?

No God did not curse him (a curse causeless shall not come)! It just shows the pattern of life the depraved nature he was conceived and born with will choose.Just like Esau was to serve Jacob not as though God cursed Esau but he was a profane person.

mymadam:
The duty of British schools to arrange daily acts of collective worship should be scrapped, a report says.

The study, for the Arts and Humanities Research Council says such acts, which must be Christian in nature, could discriminate against other religions.

It adds there is no clear rationale for the duty, and that parents are often unaware they can withdraw their children from religious assemblies.
The government said collective worship has an important role in schools.

Schools in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are required to provide daily acts of collective worship.

Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34802820

They gladly throw away their heritage while welcoming those that will rather die than dispense with theirs! This is a time bomb!

Ubenedictus:
my dear there is nothing to reconcile, Jesus was sent by the father, he sent his apostles, Jesus is d chief sherpherd d gave peter and other d duty to tend d flock,

Good. Then it is wrong to single out one as the 'universal head' or 'rock' on which the Church was built! There were many as Peter admonished and Paul also did:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you
1 Peter 5:1,2a

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Here Paul was not even speaking to Apostles!

Jesus is d chief cornerstone and he appointed peter as rock and built upon d foundation of d apostles.

Here is an effective distortion of Ephesians 2;20! The apostles and prophets are the foundation all resting on the Chief Cornerstone - Jesus Christ!
Whence did you get Peter is a rock on which the foundation of the apostles?

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinth 3:11

Ubenedictus:
so u do nt blive dat Jesus gave his authority to d apostles? Wat does matt 18:18 say? Is dat not authority been given?

Christ is the Head of the Church, His Body. His authority is in His Name and that is for the Body:
Ephesians 1:22,23
22 and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Ephesians 2:6
6 And He raised us up together with Him and made us sit down together [giving us joint seating with Him] in the heavenly sphere [by virtue of our being] in Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One).


However, NOBODY can EVER claim the right of Headship over the Church ; Peter NEVER did!!!

[b]The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
1 Peter 5:1-4
Written by Peter while at Babylon/Rome. (I doubt this Babylon=Rome claim! Afterall Paul too went to Rome and wrote the Epistle to the Romans!)

did u read what u quoted? Read d bold, paul wasn't taught by anyone but even him had to meet d apostles to confirm his teaching he said 'so dat he doesn't run in vain'.

Yes bro, it's called accountability! Paul too had to openly rebuke Peter at a point! No superiority there!!!

Jolliano:
And Peter ended the debate by defining what we call a DOGMA.

James made a suggestion as to what message should be passed across. Peter ended the debate.

Pls show chapter and verse in book of Acts where your claim happened!



James made the Spirit inspired declaration and all the apostles and elders, one of which was Peter, agreed to it.

Acts 15:13,22,23
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23 and they wrote letters by them after this manner;

The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

Pls study carefully before making assertions, we are on air!

Ubenedictus:
what i read is, you are cephas and upon this cephas i will build my church..., i will give YOU the keys of the kingdom...

That is pretty clear my dear, peter was given d keys, he also had his name changed from simon to cephas. Unles u are trying to misinterprete d word of God.

Do reconcile your interpretation with:

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Ubenedictus:
that is actually rightly translated as a female christian by all early christains, d greek word there is a sister who is a woman.

It seems ur translators are playing wit u.

So Paul had to qualify the type of sister, that it should be a sister that is a woman and not the sister that is a man!!! I think you should be objective here. In that chapter 9, Paul itemised some legitimate things he denied himself of in order to preach the Gospel, one of them was marriage and that is why he could say:

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
1 Corinth 7:8,32,35

Ubenedictus:
actually, scripture only identifys peters mother in law in dat passage, it doesnt hint whether or not d wife was alive or dead.

Going further to 1 Corinth 9:5, Paul hinted that Cephas/Peter still led about a wife.

Jolliano:
Read Acts 15. Even with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles argued for a LONG time(v7) until Peter stood up and put an end to the debate once and for all. This argument has never been brought up again.

But , with discernment, they could only take a decision pleasing to the Spirit Who did not dictate to them but, as Jesus had said He would, led them to all Truth regarding the matter at hand:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28
Note:
1. The order - the Holy Ghost before 'us'.
2. The union - it did not say to me.

P.S James rounded up the meeting, not Peter Acts 15:13

Jolliano:
What about Galatians 1:18?

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Galatians 1:18,19

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11,12

He did not go to Peter for teaching/feeding.

Yes. All Apostles ranked side by side except for Peter(who was their head) which is why it is almost constantly written "Peter and the apostles" and not just "the apostles" after all everyone would have known that Peter was an Apostle.

That he was like the spokesman does not mean he was their head. Even Jesus did not choose one when they wanted to know who will be the greatest among them. The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 suggests a maintained sense of equality among the Apostles: James issued what will be the conclusion of the deliberations neither by Peter's behest, nor subject to Peter's approval!

If the Apostles had no authority, what then did they use to define the issue of circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem and with what authority did Peter make the declaration in ACTS 15:11?

Christ already gave them (not one) this authority (more like an assignment) in John 15: 20b,27(affirmed in Ephesians 2:20). The Authority of Christ is in His Name and that Name is available to all that believe. However, His authority as the Head of the Church is in the hands of NOBODY!

chuna1985:
Adonijah was in d battle field defending isreal wen the plan to replace him was hatched. The second Israel chief priest saw what was going on and rushed to d battle field to call him. Adonijah handed over command n raced home, but wen he entered d city, he heard the trumpets for coronation.

9 And Adonijah slew sheep and oxen and fat cattle by the stone of Zoheleth, which is by En-rogel, and called all his brethren the king’s sons, and all the men of Judah the king’s servants:

41 And Adonijah and all the guests that were with him heard it as they had made an end of eating. And when Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, he said, Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar?
42 And while he yet spake, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came: and Adonijah said unto him, Come in; for thou art a valiant man, and bringest good tidings.
43 And Jonathan answered and said to Adonijah, Verily our lord king David hath made Solomon king.

1 Kings 1:9,41-43

Indeed he was in the battlefield killing sheep and inviting guest for eating and drinking, wining and dining!!!

Jolliano:
You forget that Christ handed over his authority to the apostles. John 20:21-23.

That is your interpretation which was neither stated nor hinted at by ANY of the Apostles in their Epistles!
Kindly answer: who is the Body of Christ? the Church or the Apostles.

He also gave some of his duties directly to Peter only.
Remember, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and then later, passes the task of the Shepherd specially to Peter when he said "FEED MY SHEEP" 3 Times.

The SHEPHERD appointed Peter to feed HIS sheep.Hence Peter , in 1 Peter 5:2,4 looked forward, like a servant would,to his reward at the coming of the CHIEF SHEPHERD. In fact vs 2 showed he understood he was not the only one to do the feeding.

Peter addresses himself as one of the elders because a pope is actually a bishop like all other bishops but is at the same time,the head of all the bishops just as Peter was the head of the Apostles.


Only he was told by Christ on Holy Thursday night “I have prayed for you that your faith never fail and when you’ve repented, go and strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22: 31-32). And when Jesus, after the resurrection, cooked a fish breakfast for the apostles (John 21), it was only to Peter that Jesus put the question “do you love me?”

But why did Jesus ask him the same question three times?
Perhaps Peter needed to atone for his three-fold denial of
Christ by a three-fold profession of love. Perhaps, given
Peter’s track record of getting it wrong, the Lord really
wanted to be sure he got his point across. Here’s the point–

“Peter, your way of expressing penance for your sin and love for me will be to feed my sheep. Remember, they are not your sheep, but mine. Take care of them for me. Do for
them what I did for them. Don’t just feed them. Protect
them. Lay down your life for them if necessary.”

Peter’s role as a Shepherd is, in a way, unique because it is
universal. Despite his human frailty, he is given care of all
the Churches. And, if we take Lk 22:31-32 seriously, he is
called to be the shepherd of all the shepherds.

Unfortunately Peter neither held these views of yours nor exalted himself as you are indicating. All the Apostles ranked side by side. This claim for Peter appears to contradict Christ's view in answering the carnal question: who will be the greatest?

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
None was singled out here.


Galatians 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Peter was one of the Apostles of repute ( and perhaps notable because of his being an extrovert) but there were others eg James, John etc

Jolliano:
1. Did Jesus not know that before he likened the two together?

2. Unleavened bread was eaten during the passover period not during the passover MEAL. What is eaten in the passover meal is the lamb.

3. John 6. "Your ancestors ate bread in the wilderness and died." "I am the bread of life."

Manna/Consecrated bread prefigures the Eucharist.

4. When I say Apostles, you quote me as saying disciples. The 12 Apostles are different from the other disciples. They were called for a special ministry and they received teachings,power and missions that the other disciples did not.
"Go and make disciples" is not "Go and make Apostles."

1. That event was about keeping the sabbath and Christ was underscoring the fact that the sabbath was made for man; not a case of which bread looked like the other!

2. The Passover was initiated and this was the command:
8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs [/b]they shall eat it.
Exodus 12:8
Whither your claims of a passover and another separate meal?

3. John 6 has NOTHING to do with the Lord's Supper! The Lord's Supper was to be done strictly in remembrance of Christ not as a means of having life.
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: [b]this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luke22:19,20

4 Your answer here is acceptable to a degree, at least it explains why no other book/tradition can rank side by side with the Bible. However, Paul spoke of ministerial gifts and Apostle was the first mentioned though, these ones may not share the same authority with the ones that where with Him from the beginning of His earthly ministry.

chuna1985:
lmao. ok explain to me what i asked, why did solonon kill his brother n took away his throne

why did d chief priest connive with bethsheba to steal adonijahs throne

Adonijah was alive when Solomon was crowned king.

Jolliano:
The Apostles gathered occasionally at Jerusalem for mEetings and Councils doesn't mean that they all stayed there. That would be very close to saying Paul was the only one that actually evangelised to the gentiles.

On the issue of papacy, Jesus did make Peter the Pope. Read Matthew 16:16-19. Remember that Simon was his name and that Jesus Christ gave him the name Peter. John 1:40-42. *lso read Mark 3:16 and Luke 6:14. God does not change names except where something serious is involved.

You will understand better that the Rock on which the Church will be built is Christ (which Peter just confessed to be Jesus by the Father's revelation) - the Cornerstone:
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Ephesians 2:20
Note that the foundation does not single out any of the Apostles! It is in plural (further confirming that NO ONE can establish his own books or traditions today and claim they are at par with the writings and recorded speeches of those who are the apostles and prophets Paul wrote about). Besides, Paul, being inspired, shows us Who the Rock is!

Peter has something to say:
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe [size=13pt]he[/size] is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 and[b] a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,[/b] even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:4-8

Here Peter tells us Who the Stone/Rock is!

He goes on to tell us Who the Chief Shepherd is:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1 Peter 5:1-4
Peter said he is just one of the elders. Note that he wrote this while with the Church at Babylon/Rome!