Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    12 May '18 05:43
    The Apocalypse of Peter a.k.a. The Revelation of Peter

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

    Why wasn't it included in the Bible?

    And then the same question with regard to The Gospel of Peter:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
  2. 12 May '18 06:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @fmf
    The Apocalypse of Peter a.k.a. The Revelation of Peter

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

    Why wasn't it included in the Bible?

    And then the same question with regard to The Gospel of Peter:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
    <<And then the same question with regard to The (alleged) Gospel of Peter:>>

    Question: "What is the Gospel of Peter?"

    Answer: The Gospel of Peter is a pseudepigraphal work that purports to be written by Peter but in fact relates a false view of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Peter contains 60 verses and deals with events surrounding the end of Jesus’ life. The original is thought to have been written c. AD 150, although the earliest extant manuscript dates from the 8th or 9th century.

    The first mention of the Gospel of Peter was made by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (c. AD 200) in a letter titled “Concerning what is known as the Gospel of Peter.” In this letter Serapion advised church leaders not to read the so-called Gospel to their congregations because of its Docetic content. He also condemned the Gospel of Peter as a forgery.

    What is Docetism? One form of Docetism (Marcionism) maintained that Christ was so divine he could not have been human. He only appeared to be made of flesh and blood, His body being a phantasm. Other groups held that, while Jesus was a man in the flesh, Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus’ body in the form of a dove at His baptism, empowering Him to perform miracles. The “Christ entity” then abandoned Jesus on the cross. Docetism was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and is regarded as heretical by Catholics and Protestants alike. Docetism largely died out during the first millennium.

    The Gospel of Peter says that on the cross Jesus cried out, “My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me,” rather than “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). In the account of the crucifixion, the Gospel of Peter carefully avoids saying that Jesus died, asserting instead that He “was taken up.” This idea of escaping actual death is mirrored in the Qur’an, Sura 4:157–158: “But Allah took him up unto Himself.” The Gospel of Peter suggests that Christ was “taken up” to the Divine Presence at the moment His divine power left His bodily shell, which had only been a temporary residence. This teaching, together with the claim that Jesus “remained silent, as though he felt no pain” on the cross, highlights the error of Docetism.

    Another way in which the Gospel of Peter differs from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is the description of events after Jesus’ body was laid in the tomb. The Gospel of Peter says that the guards “saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. . . . Again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, ‘You have preached to them that sleep.’ And a response was heard from the cross, ‘Yes.’” This passage has some Gnostic leanings.

    Here are some of the main problems with the Gospel of Peter:

    The crucifixion takes place in Rome, not Jerusalem.

    Joseph of Arimathea is said to be a personal friend of Pontius Pilate.

    Pontius Pilate is exonerated from all responsibility. Herod Antipas takes over for him, assuming the responsibility which, in Luke’s Gospel, Herod declines to accept.

    Jesus is “taken up” from the cross, and His death is not mentioned.

    Two supernatural beings enter the tomb, and three emerge.
    The cross is described as floating out of the tomb and saying “Yes” to a voice from heaven.

    There is no mention of witnesses seeing Jesus alive after He was dragged out of the tomb.

    And if that is not enough to shed doubt on the veracity of the Gospel of Peter, we also have the testimony of Eusebius. The historian made reference to the Gospel of Peter in his writings, claiming that Apollo was the god originally mentioned in the Gospel of Peter, not Jesus Christ. Eusebius said the name of Jesus Christ was written over the name of Apollo.

    The Gospel of Peter disagrees with the four canonical Gospels in vitally important areas, including the physical death and bodily resurrection of our Lord and Savior.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/gospel-of-Peter.html
  3. 12 May '18 06:52
    Originally posted by @fmf
    The Apocalypse of Peter a.k.a. The Revelation of Peter

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

    Why wasn't it included in the Bible?

    And then the same question with regard to The Gospel of Peter:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
    Question: "What is the Apocalypse of Peter?"

    Answer: The Apocalypse of Peter, also known as the Revelation of Peter, is a piece of literature believed to have been written around the middle of the second century A.D. The Apocalypse of Peter should not be confused with the Gnostic Gospel of Peter, a completely different work. The Apocalypse of Peter does not exist in an entire manuscript, but has been found in quotations from early church leaders and two partial fragments. The first fragment, written in Greek, was found in Egypt in 1886; a second, Ethiopian fragment was found in 1910. The text is short, no more than a few dozen verses, and the authorship is unknown.

    The two fragments found represent separate versions of the Apocalypse of Peter. The Greek and Ethiopian versions differ considerably, although they involve much of the same subject matter. In the Greek version, the disciples ask Jesus to show them believers who have passed from this world into righteousness. Christ shows them a wonderful vision of the redeemed, but He also shows them a terrible and frightening picture of the condemned. This scene has many similarities to the Greek myths of the underworld. Readers of Dante’s Inferno would find the descriptions in the Greek fragment oddly familiar.

    In the Ethiopian version, the disciples ask Christ to tell them some of the signs of the end times and to further explain the incident with the fig tree (Mark 11). Christ unveils a vision of the future that includes epic levels of destruction and chaos. This version also makes mention of the beautiful state of the righteous and the horrible torment of the unrighteous.

    The Apocalypse of Peter was not accepted by early Christians into the collection of scriptures that became the Bible. There were some early Christian writers who considered it inspired, but the general consensus left it out of the final canon of Scripture. Not only do both versions of the text include imagery clearly drawn from Greek mythology, but the Apocalypse of Peter also diverges from well-established Biblical principles. For these reasons, the Apocalypse of Peter was not included in the list of books of the Bible.

    The Apocalypse of Peter was probably in wide circulation at some point, given the frequency of quotations in other sources. As an historical document, it provides interesting insights into the beliefs and opinions of some early Christians. However, as a non-inspired work, it is valuable only for reference. Like the many other ancient documents that became part of the Old and New Testament Apocrypha, the Apocalypse of Peter is not a reliable source of doctrine.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/apocalypse-of-Peter.html
  4. Subscriber divegeester
    Naughtius Maximus
    12 May '18 06:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @fmf
    The Apocalypse of Peter a.k.a. The Revelation of Peter

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

    Why wasn't it included in the Bible?

    And then the same question with regard to The Gospel of Peter:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
    There was too much “apocalypse” in the bible already.
  5. 12 May '18 07:02
    The canon of the New Testament was reserved only for those writings that were either written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle. Since the Gospel of Peter was written in the mid second century, it is not a candidate for inclusion in the New Testament. The numerous embellishments in the Gospel of Peter clearly indicate that it was composed in the second century and was not written by the apostle Peter. This second-century date of authorship is in conformity with modern New Testament scholarship's appraisal of the Gospel of Peter. Therefore, the early church rightfully rejected this Gospel which was falsely attributed to Peter.

    Background Information about the Gospel of Peter
    What is the Gospel of Peter?

    Though incorrectly ascribed to the apostle Peter, the Gospel of Peter is comprised of 14 paragraphs (or 60 verses), written around 150 A.D., which describes the events surrounding the end of Jesus’ life including his trial, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.1 This Gospel is only partially preserved in one 8-9th century manuscript, beginning and ending in mid sentence (Harris, 245).2 The Gospel of Peter contains many similarities with the New Testament Gospels including the basic outline of the end of Jesus’ life with his trial, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, but it also contains a number of additions including, most notably, a description of the actual resurrection event with two giant angels, a super-sized Jesus, and a talking cross emerging from the empty tomb.

    When was the Gospel of Peter discovered?

    The Gospel of Peter was allegedly discovered in 1886-1887 during excavations in Akhmîm, upper Egypt. A ninth century manuscript was found in the coffin of a monk which is now known as the Akhmîm fragment. Interestingly, this fragment contains no name or title. However, since the manuscript had (1) alleged docetic3 overtones and was (2) found in the midst of other works attributed to the apostle Peter, such as the Apocalypse of Peter, scholars think that the Akhmîm fragment belonged to the Gospel of Peter.4

    Do any ancient writers talk about the Gospel of Peter?

    Prior to the discovery of the Akhmîm fragment in 1886-87, scholars knew very little about the Gospel of Peter. Their first main source was Eusebius of Caesarea (c. A.D. 260-340), the well-known early church historian, who noted that the Gospel of Peter was among the church’s rejected writings and had heretical roots.5 The second main source for the Gospel of Peter is a letter by Serapion, a bishop in Antioch (in office A.D. 199-211), titled “Concerning What is Known as the Gospel of Peter.”6 Bishop Serapion notes that the Gospel of Peter had docetic overtones and advised that church leaders not read it to their congregations. From Bishop Serapion’s statements we know that the Gospel of Peter was written sometime in the second century, but we are left with little knowledge of its actual contents from Serapion’s statements alone.7

    Is the Gospel of Peter a Gnostic Gospel?

    There is some debate among scholars regarding whether the Akhmîm fragment actually is a Gnostic document. There are two possible Gnostic examples in 4:10 [paragraph 4] and 5:19 [paragraph 5]. Paragraph 4 describes the crucifixion of Jesus and states, "But he held his peace, as though having no pain." This may reflect the Gnostic view of Docetism which viewed Jesus as not possessing a phyiscal body. This would explain Jesus' lack of pain on the cross. Furthermore, paragraph 5 describes Jesus' death cry on the cross as, "My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me." Some scholars see this as a reference to "...a docetic version of the cry of dereliction which results from the departure of the divine power from Jesus' bodily shell."8 However, some scholars dispute these references as referring to full blown Gnosticism or Gnostic teachings at all.

    When was the Gospel of Peter written?
    Though this work was attributed to the apostle Peter (Par. 14), contemporary New Testament scholars rightfully note that the Gospel of Peter is a second century A.D. work. Most scholars would not date this Gospel before 130-150 A.D because of: (1) the numerous historical errors including a preponderance of legendary embellishments and lack of first century historical knowledge, and (2) the likely dependence which the Gospel of Peter has on the New Testament Gospels. For these reasons among many, most scholars today reject the Gospel of Peter as giving us as accurate of a portrait of Jesus as the standard New Testament Gospels and regard it as a late composition from the second century A.D.

    Historical Errors

    Error #1: The Guilt of Jews

    The confession of the Jewish authorities guilt (par. 7; 11) lacks historical credibility.9 The confession of the Jewish authorities makes more sense in a context after 70 A.D. where the Jews were blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem as a result of not accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Furthermore, the reference of the Jewish scribes and elders saying, “For it is better, say they, for us to be guilty of the greatest sin before God, and not to fall into the hands of the people of the Jews and to be stoned,” likewise reflects a period after 70 A.D. and is definitely not earlier than the Synoptic material.

    Error #2: The High Priest Spending the Night in the Cemetery

    Furthermore, the author of the Gospel of Peter (or Akhmîm fragment) possessed very little knowledge of Jewish customs. According to paragraphs 8 and 10, the Jewish elders and scribes actually camp out in the cemetery as part of the guard keeping watch over the tomb of Jesus. Craig Evans wisely notes, “Given Jewish views of corpse impurity, not to mention fear of cemeteries at night, the author of our fragment is unbelievably ignorant (Evans, Fabricating Jesus, 83).” The ruling priest spending the night in the cemetery; no ruling priest would actually do that. Due to these serious blunders, it is highly unlikely that this Gospel reflects earlier material than the New Testament gospels. Instead, the author is most likely far removed from the historical events surrounding Jesus’ death and burial.

    Error #3: Embellishment of the New Testament Resurrection Accounts

    There are a number of apparent embellishments in the Gospel of Peter, especially surrounding the guarding of the tomb and the resurrection. Regarding the guarding of the tomb, there are seven even seals over the tomb (8), and a great multitude from the surrounding area comes to see the sealing of the tomb. Though these are certainly historical possibilities, it appears to indicate that these are embellishments compared to the more simple accounts in the New Testament Gospels.

    The New Testament writers never describe exactly how the resurrection took place, since presumably no one was there to witness it other than the guards. Perhaps the most fascinating part of the Gospel of Peter’s account is that it actually describes the resurrection of Jesus (9-10)!

    “9 And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend from thence with great light and approach the tomb. And that stone which was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in. 10 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him who was lead by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.”10

    This resurrection account does not retain anything of the historical soberness that is in the New Testament resurrection accounts. Instead, this description of the resurrection of Jesus has a large angel whose head “reached unto the heaven,” and a giant Jesus whose head “overpassed the heavens!" Finally, the best example is the talking cross. The voice from heaven says, “Thou has preached to them that sleep.” The cross responds by saying, “Yea.” While it is possible that there was a giant Jesus whose head surpassed the heavens and a talking cross, it is more likely that this story is probably an embellishment of the simpler empty tomb and resurrection accounts in the New Testament Gospels. It is probably just another attempt like some other Gnostic Gospels to “fill in the gaps” in the events surrounding Jesus’ life.

    How anyone could think of this resurrection account as more primitive than the Gospels seems quite unreasonable. Evans wisely states, “…can it be seriously maintained that the Akhmîm fragment’s [Gospel of Peter's] resurrection account, complete with a talking cross and angels whose heads reach heaven, constitutes the most primitive account?” (Evans, 84).

    Dependence on the New Testament Gospels

    It is difficult to prove exact literary dependence by the Gospel of Peter on the New Testament Gospel; however, there are at least a couple instances in Peter which are best explained by the author having familiarity with the canonical New Testament Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew is a prime example, with its guard at the tomb of Jesus. The Gospel of Peter author likely took this account and embellished it by having Jewish leaders come and camp out at the tomb overnight. This may have served the apologetical purposes of the author of the Gospel of Peter which reflected conditions after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Furthermore, the centurion's confession (par. 11) appears to also reflect the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 27:54; cf. Mk. 15:39; Lk. 23:47).

    Finally, the Go...
  6. 12 May '18 07:05
    Finally, the Gospel of Peter's reference of the thief uses the same Greek words to reference the thief in paragraph 4 (4.10, 13), which likely reflects the Gospel of Luke (23:33, 39).

    Since the Gospel of Peter is likely a second century work due to the historical errors listed above, it is likely that the Gospel of Peter at least used similar traditions that are found in the New Testament Gospels, if not the Gospels themselves. This is a much more sober conclusion rather than basing our argument on source criticism alone, which is often bound with mere speculation of hypothetical sources and layers of editing and redaction. Anyhow, given the numerous embellishments and historical errors, it is likely that the author had some familiarity with the canonical Gospels and combined it with his own speculations. However, to what extent the author had knowledge of the New Testament Gospels, we may never know.

    Conclusion

    Despite the claims of some, the Gospel of Peter does not belong in the New Testament due to its serious embellishments and likely dependence on the New Testament Gospels. For these reasons among many, most scholars today reject the Gospel of Peter as giving us as accurate of a portrait of Jesus as the standard New Testament Gospels, and regard it as a late composition from the second century A.D.

    A Summary of the Evidence for a Second Century Date of the Gospel of Peter
    Historical Errors and Embellishments

    Seven seals are used to seal the tomb of Jesus (Paragraph 8).
    A crowd from Jerusalem comes to see the sealed tomb of Jesus (Par. 9).
    The Jewish leaders camp out at the tomb of Jesus overnight.
    The Jewish leaders fear the harm of the Jewish people (Par. 8). This does not descibe the historical situation of the Jews before the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.
    The Resurrection story actually describes how Jesus exited the tomb with two giant angels, a super-sized Jesus, and a talking cross.
    Late References

    Transfer of responsibility of Jesus’ death away from Pilate to Herod and the Jews.
    “The Lord’s Day” reference (Par. 9) indicates a later time period (cf. Rev. 1:10; Ignatius’s Epistle to the Magnesians 9:1).
    Possible Gnostic Overtones

    Silence during the crucifixion “as if he felt no pain.” This could be consistent with a docetic view of Jesus which was common in Gnostic circles.
    Crucifixion cry is “my Power!” “my Power!” which likely indicates a supernatural being departed from him.
    Jesus’ death is described as being “taken up,” implying that he was rescued without dying. This would be consistent with some Gnostic views that thought since Jesus was not fully a man, he could not actually die on the cross.
    Possible New Testament Parallels

    The centurion’s confession (Par. 11) appears to reflect the Gospel of Matthew (Mt. 27:54; cf. Mk. 15:39; Lk. 23:47).
    The posting of the guard at the tomb appears to reflect the Gospel of Matthew.
    Sources

    Bock, Darrell L. The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth behind Alternative Christianities. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006.
    Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2008.
    Evans, Craig A. “The Apocryphal Jesus: Assessing the Possibilities and Problems.” 147-172. In Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, eds. Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.
    Harris, Stephen L. The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction. Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
    Head, P. M. "On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter," Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992), 209-224.
    Strobel, Lee. The Case for the Real Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

    https://carm.org/does-the-gospel-of-peter-belong-in-the-new-testament
  7. 12 May '18 07:06
    Basically, the so-called “Gospel of Peter” is a forgery.
  8. 12 May '18 07:10
    The Apocalypse of Peter – What is it?

    The Apocalypse of Peter (also known as the Revelation of Peter) is a writing alleged as authored by the apostle Peter that was written in the second century. It exists in three Greek manuscripts (two are incomplete) and in one Ethiopian manuscript, which differs greatly from the Greek text.

    The origin of the Apocalypse of Peter can be safely assigned to the second century due to the Muratorian Canon. The Muratorian Canon is the oldest known list of New Testament books from as early as AD 170 that notes the Apocalypse of Peter as one of the books not to be included. Since it likely quotes 4 Esdras (written about AD 100), the Apocalypse of Peter is often believed to have been written about this time. Its author was not the apostle Peter (who died in the 60s AD) and remains unknown.

    The book was quoted frequently in early ancient writings as well as by the church fathers. Due to this, some felt it was an authoritative writing, yet by the end of the second century its popularity had waned. However, in the fifth-century a church historian named Sozomen wrote that to his knowledge the Apocalypse of Peter was still read each year in some churches in Palestine on Good Friday. Of major concern is that the existing manuscripts vary greatly, indicating that the original text of this document cannot be determined with a high degree of confidence.

    The content of the book focuses on false teachers in the last days as well as the judgment to come at the end of time. In the Ethiopian version, Jesus expands His response to the question of the disciples in Matthew 24 regarding the signs of the end of the age. Jesus is also said to have given an extended commentary following the parable of the fig tree. One selection reads:

    "Floods (cataracts) of fire shall be let loose; and darkness and obscurity shall come up and clothe and veil the whole world and the waters shall be changed and turned into coals of fire and all that is in them shall burn, and the sea shall become fire. Under the heaven shall be a sharp fire that cannot be quenched and floweth to fulfil the judgement of wrath. And the stars shall fly in pieces by flames of fire, as if they had not been created and the powers (firmaments) of the heaven shall pass away for lack of water and shall be as though they had not been."

    Clearly, the Apocalypse of Peter focused on the judgment to come and being prepared for Christ's coming!

    While many notable features are found in this writing, it is clear the Apocalypse of Peter was not accepted as authoritative for the church, was not considered inspired Scripture, and was not authored by the apostle Peter. It has, however, played a strong role in church history as a reminder of false teaching and as a reminder of God's coming judgment at the end of time.

    https://www.compellingtruth.org/apocalypse-of-Peter.html
  9. 12 May '18 07:11
    Basically, the so-called “Apocalypse of Peter” is a forgery.
  10. 12 May '18 07:15
    Originally posted by @fmf
    The Apocalypse of Peter a.k.a. The Revelation of Peter

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

    Why wasn't it included in the Bible?

    And then the same question with regard to The Gospel of Peter:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
    In answer to your questions, neither was written by the Apostle Peter. They are forgeries that were written long after the Apostle Peter was executed.

    For further information, please see my above posts.

    Thank you, and God bless America.
  11. 12 May '18 07:16
    God bless America
    Land that I love
    Stand beside her
    And guide her
    Through the night with the light from above
    From the mountains
    To the prairies
    To the oceans
    White with foam
    God bless America
    My home sweet home
    From the mountains
    To the prairies
    To the oceans
    White with foam
    God bless America
    My home sweet home
    God bless America
    My home sweet home

    (Songwriters: Irving Berlin)
  12. 12 May '18 07:36
    <<Who was the Apostle Peter?>>

    Question: "What can we learn from the life of Peter?"

    Answer: Simon Peter, also known as Cephas (John 1:42), was one of the first followers of Jesus Christ. He was an outspoken and ardent disciple, one of Jesus’ closest friends, an apostle, and a “pillar” of the church (Galatians 2:9). Peter was enthusiastic, strong-willed, impulsive, and, at times, brash. But for all his strengths, Peter had several failings in his life. Still, the Lord who chose him continued to mold him into exactly who He intended Peter to be.

    Simon was originally from Bethsaida (John 1:44) and lived in Capernaum (Mark 1:29), both cities on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. He was married (1 Corinthians 9:5), and he and James and John were partners in a profitable fishing business (Luke 5:10). Simon met Jesus through his brother Andrew, who had followed Jesus after hearing John the Baptist proclaim that Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:35-36). Andrew immediately went to find his brother to bring him to Jesus. Upon meeting Simon, Jesus gave him a new name: Cephas (Aramaic) or Peter (Greek), which means “rock” (John 1:40-42). Later, Jesus officially called Peter to follow Him, producing a miraculous catch of fish (Luke 5:1-7). Immediately, Peter left everything behind to follow the Lord (verse 11).

    For the next three years, Peter lived as a disciple of the Lord Jesus. Being a natural-born leader, Peter became the de facto spokesman for the Twelve (Matthew 15:15, 18:21, 19:27; Mark 11:21; Luke 8:45, 12:41; John 6:68, 13:6-9, 36). More significantly, it was Peter who first confessed Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” a truth which Jesus said was divinely revealed to Peter (Matthew 16:16-17).

    Peter was part of the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples, along with James and John. Only those three were present when Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37) and when Jesus was transfigured on the mountain (Matthew 17:1). Peter and John were given the special task of preparing the final Passover meal (Luke 22:8).

    In several instances, Peter showed himself to be impetuous to the point of rashness. For example, it was Peter who left the boat to walk on the water to Jesus (Matthew 14:28-29)—and promptly took his eyes off Jesus and began to sink (verse 30). It was Peter who took Jesus aside to rebuke Him for speaking of His death (Matthew 16:22)—and was swiftly corrected by the Lord (verse 23). It was Peter who suggested erecting three tabernacles to honor Moses, Elijah, and Jesus (Matthew 17:4)—and fell to the ground in fearful silence at God’s glory (verses 5-6). It was Peter who drew his sword and attacked the servant of the high priest (John 18:10)—and was immediately told to sheath his weapon (verse 11). It was Peter who boasted that he would never forsake the Lord, even if everyone else did (Matthew 26:33)—and later denied three times that he even knew the Lord (verses 70-74).

    Through all of Peter’s ups and downs, the Lord Jesus remained his loving Lord and faithful Guide. Jesus reaffirmed Simon as Peter, the “Rock,” in Matthew 16:18-19, promising that he would be instrumental in establishing Jesus’ Church. After His resurrection, Jesus specifically named Peter as one who needed to hear the good news (Mark 16:7). And, repeating the miracle of the large catch of fish, Jesus made a special point of forgiving and restoring Peter and re-commissioning him as an apostle (John 21:6, 15-17).

    On the day of Pentecost, Peter was the main speaker to the crowd in Jerusalem (Acts 2:14ff), and the Church began with an influx of about 3,000 new believers (verse 41). Later, Peter healed a lame beggar (Acts 3) and preached boldly before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4). Even arrest, beatings, and threats could not dampen Peter’s resolve to preach the risen Christ (Acts 5).

    Jesus’ promise that Peter would be foundational in building the Church was fulfilled in three stages: Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Then, he was present when the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8). Finally, he was summoned to the home of the Roman centurion Cornelius, who also believed and received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10). In this way, Peter “unlocked” three different worlds and opened the door of the Church to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles.

    Even as an apostle, Peter experienced some growing pains. At first, he had resisted taking the gospel to Cornelius, a Gentile. However, when he saw the Romans receive the Holy Spirit in the same manner he had, Peter concluded that “God does not show favoritism” (Acts 10:34). After that, Peter strongly defended the Gentiles’ position as believers and was adamant that they did not need to conform to Jewish law (Acts 15:7-11).

    Another episode of growth in Peter’s life concerns his visit to Antioch, where he enjoyed the fellowship of Gentile believers. However, when some legalistic Jews arrived in Antioch, Peter, to appease them, withdrew from the Gentile Christians. The Apostle Paul saw this as hypocrisy and called it such to Peter’s face (Galatians 2:11-14).

    Later in life, Peter spent time with John Mark (1 Peter 5:13), who wrote the gospel of Mark based on Peter’s remembrances of his time with Jesus. Peter wrote two inspired epistles, 1 and 2 Peter, between A.D. 60 and 68. Jesus said that Peter would die a martyr’s death (John 21:18-19)—a prophecy fulfilled, presumably, during Nero’s reign. Tradition has it that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome, and, although such the story may be true, there is no scriptural or historical witness to the particulars of Peter’s death.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/life-Peter.html
  13. 12 May '18 07:37
    <<What can we learn from Peter’s life?>>

    What can we learn from Peter’s life? Here are a few lessons:

    Jesus overcomes fear. Whether stepping out of a boat onto a tossing sea or stepping across the threshold of a Gentile home for the first time, Peter found courage in following Christ. “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:18).

    Jesus forgives unfaithfulness. After he had boasted of his fidelity, Peter fervently denied the Lord three times. It seemed that Peter had burned his bridges, but Jesus lovingly rebuilt them and restored Peter to service. Peter was a former failure, but, with Jesus, failure is not the end. “If we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself” (2 Timothy 2:13).

    Jesus patiently teaches. Over and over, Peter needed correction, and the Lord gave it with patience, firmness, and love. The Master Teacher looks for students willing to learn. “I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go” (Psalm 32:8).

    Jesus sees us as He intends us to be. The very first time they met, Jesus called Simon “Peter.” The rough and reckless fisherman was, in Jesus’ eyes, a firm and faithful rock. “He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion” (Philippians 1:6).

    Jesus uses unlikely heroes. Peter was a fisherman from Galilee, but Jesus called him to be a fisher of men (Luke 5:10). Because Peter was willing to leave all he had to follow Jesus, God used him in great ways. As Peter preached, people were amazed at his boldness because he was “unschooled” and “ordinary.” But then they took note that Peter “had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13). Being with Jesus makes all the difference.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/life-Peter.html
  14. Subscriber sonship
    the corrected one.
    12 May '18 07:45
    Originally posted by @fmf
    The Apocalypse of Peter a.k.a. The Revelation of Peter

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

    Why wasn't it included in the Bible?

    And then the same question with regard to The Gospel of Peter:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
    Why wasn't it included in the Bible?


    Tell us what difference it would make to you if it had been included.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    Main Poster
    12 May '18 07:48
    Originally posted by @sonship
    Tell us what difference it would make to you if it had been included.
    Back when I was a Christian? I cannot recall. Would it have prolonged my faith or contributed to the loss of it? Don't know. Presumably the latter.