Peter Was Celibate After Metting Jesus.

[ironmonk]

St. Luke 5:11

When they brought their boats to the shore, they left everything 2 and followed him.

2They left everything: in Mark 1:16-20 and Matthew 4:18-22 the fishermen who follow Jesus leave their nets and their father; in Luke, they leave everything (see also Luke 5:28; 12:33; 14:33; 18:22), an indication of Luke's theme of complete detachment from material possessions.

"They Left Everything"... it doesn't say 'except his wife'. Some recordings in history say that Peter was a widower... Peter was celibate after he met Jesus.

On a side note....

St. Luke 5:1 1While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret.

The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

1 [1-11] This incident has been transposed from his source, Mark 1:16-20, which places it immediately after Jesus makes his appearance in Galilee. By this transposition Luke uses this example of Simon's acceptance of Jesus to counter the earlier rejection of him by his hometown people, and since several incidents dealing with Jesus' power and authority have already been narrated, Luke creates a plausible context for the acceptance of Jesus by Simon and his partners. Many commentators have noted the similarity between the wondrous catch of fish reported here (Luke 4:4-9) and the post-resurrectional appearance of Jesus in John 21:1-11. There are traces in Luke's story that the post-resurrectional context is the original one: in Luke 4:8 Simon addresses Jesus as Lord (a post-resurrectional title for Jesus--see Luke 24:34; Acts 2:36--that has been read back into the historical ministry of Jesus) and recognizes himself as a sinner (an appropriate recognition for one who has denied knowing Jesus--Luke 22:54-62). As used by Luke, the incident looks forward to Peter's leadership in Luke--Acts (Luke 6:14; 9:20; 22:31-32; 24:34; Acts 1:15; 2:14-40; 10:11-18; 15:7-12) and symbolizes the future success of Peter as fisherman (Acts 2:41).

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited September 4, 2003 by ironmonk

[mustbenothing]

I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

(ironmonk) The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

(Me) Yes. And?

[vianney]

and tradition is passed down orally which most protestant faiths are missing out on.

[ironmonk]

(ironmonk) The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

(Me) Yes. And?

muste,

All of my posts are directed to you, and I expect an answer from you everytime because you are the only one on the board.

I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

1 Cor 9:5 does not say that Peter remained sexually active... Many bishops in the early Church gave us sexual relations once they became bishops...

We are not animals that must mate as if we were in heat.

The context of those verses is as follows:

[4-12a] Apparently some believe that Paul is not equal to the other apostles and therefore does not enjoy equal privileges. His defense on this point (here and in 1 Cor 9:13-14) reinforces the assertion of his apostolic character in 1 Cor 9:2. It consists of a series of analogies from natural equity (7) and religious custom (1 Cor 9:13) designed to establish his equal right to support from the churches (1 Cor 9:4-6,11-12a); these analogies are confirmed by the authority of the law (1 Cor 9:8-10) and of Jesus himself (1 Cor 9:14).

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Dave]

(ironmonk) The word of God is not just written down, but it is spoken. Written down is only part of the Word of God.

(Me) Yes. And?

Well, let's look at what the Bible has to say. I included this info in another thread, but I'll gladly rehash it, as I'm feeling rather patient.

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For Protestants to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century and all been committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isaiah 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isaiah 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

The early Christians followed oral tradition:

Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)

Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).

Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Gree, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching.

Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition.

John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching.

1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit.

Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition.

2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul commands us to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity from tradition). The Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.

2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.

1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith.

2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching.

2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition).

Jesus and the apostles also relied on oral tradition:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.

[Jake Huether]

and tradition is passed down orally which most protestant faiths are missing out on.

Isn't most of our "oral" tradition documented in writings anyway? Even though the canon was "closed", oral tradition still was documented. It wasn't inspired writing. It was inspired "oral" teaching, yet it was still written down.

Even though we recognize part of the Word of God as Tradition, doesn't mean it is passed on like one Pope wispering these "secretes" to his successor as he dies. These Traditions are WELL documented and historically founded.

[vianney]

Isn't most of our "oral" tradition documented in writings anyway? Even though the canon was "closed", oral tradition still was documented. It wasn't inspired writing. It was inspired "oral" teaching, yet it was still written down.

Chapter Two, Article Two of the catechism check it out it says basically word for word what i said. You are right the oral tradition was written down but the main point is that most of it was orally done for awhile THEN written down. We should treat tradition with the same equality as scripture they are both equally important in the churches eyes.

[Jake Huether]

I wrote this in another thread, but I thought it would be appropriate here. If the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith for us, that means that it is pretty darn significant part of our salvation! right? Yet, Not only does Jesus make no mention of writing anything down, but his Apostles don't even write anything for several decades later. And even more... Those writings aren't contained under one cover for three more CENTURIES!

So, if the Bible is so important, then we must ask ourselves: Why did Christ waste his time TALKING to the Apostles after he accomplished his mission to die for our sins? I mean 40 days! That's more than a month. Jesus should have spent that time going over the details of the Bible with his Apostles! That way we wouldn't have had to wait 400 years. Or even better... If the way in which we were to be given the good news was in writing, then why did Jesus walk around and preach for his 3 year ministry. Why didn't he just hatch out the Bible with the 12? It just doesn't make any sense. If the Bible was so important as to contain ALL that we need to be saved, then why was it that Christ didn't even write a single thing!?

EVEN further on the point... If the Word of God was to be spread by writing, why is it that only HALF of the Apostles wrote anything! Is what they taught by mouth somehow not as important as what Paul taught to his church through writing?

Just makes no sense that the Bible would contain EVERYTHING.

[vianney]

ha ha i know i am not disagreeing with you..i agree totally

[Jake Huether]

Chapter Two, Article Two of the catechism check it out it says basically word for word what i said. You are right the oral tradition was written down but the main point is that most of it was orally done for awhile THEN written down. We should treat tradition with the same equality as scripture they are both equally important in the churches eyes.

Oh no doubt. I was simply making it clear for our Protestant brothers that "oral" tradition doesn't mean like Catholic Popes play the whisper game. It is established teaching that has DEEP roots and is understood by all Catholics. It is taught and open and documented. Our Traditions are established, they aren't simply a secret thing that Popes pass on to eachother. Or some man made tradition like what is referenced in Scripture. The Traditions that we hold are the same ones that Paul urged us to hold fast to.

[vianney]

and that early church fathers started. What I dont understand is that EVERY church follows some type of religion so I dont see how protestants can condem tradition,

[Damien]

Instead of Orally, why didn't Jesus just record a 5 disc CD. He could have sold them and paid off his assasins.

:blink:

[Dave]

Instead of Orally, why didn't Jesus just record a 5 disc CD. He could have sold them and paid off his assasins.

:lol:

[mustbenothing]

(Previous) Yes. And?

(ironmonk) All of my posts are directed to you, and I expect an answer from you everytime because you are the only one on the board.

(Me) I'll start responding to you again, but will more-or-less ignore any and all arguments that have already been made (as such argumentation should continue in the relevant thread), as well as all cut 'n' pastes.

(Previous) I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

(ironmonk) 1 Cor 9:5 does not say that Peter remained sexually active... Many bishops in the early Church gave us sexual relations once they became bishops...

We are not animals that must mate as if we were in heat.

(Me) But 1 Cor 9:5 does say that apostles (whom you consider to be the forerunners of bishops) had the right to take along a believing wife. The modern Catholic Church denies such a right to bishops. I have no idea whether or not to assume that Peter actually did take with him a believing wife (which seems to be implied), or if he just had the right to do so. Whatever the case, as I said before, I don't consider it too important of a question.

(ironmonk) The context of those verses is as follows:

[4-12a] Apparently some believe that Paul is not equal to the other apostles and therefore does not enjoy equal privileges. His defense on this point (here and in 1 Cor 9:13-14) reinforces the assertion of his apostolic character in 1 Cor 9:2. It consists of a series of analogies from natural equity (7) and religious custom (1 Cor 9:13) designed to establish his equal right to support from the churches (1 Cor 9:4-6,11-12a); these analogies are confirmed by the authority of the law (1 Cor 9:8-10) and of Jesus himself (1 Cor 9:14).

(Me) I don't see how this is relevant. I'm interpreting the verse as suggesting that a fundamental right of an apostle was to take along a believing wife if he so desired.

[Dave]

(Previous) Yes. And?

(ironmonk) All of my posts are directed to you, and I expect an answer from you everytime because you are the only one on the board.

(Me) I'll start responding to you again, but will more-or-less ignore any and all arguments that have already been made (as such argumentation should continue in the relevant thread), as well as all cut 'n' pastes.

More cop-outs.

(Previous) I'm not certain how to deal with the implications of 1 Corinthians 9:5. However, it doesn't seem like a highly important topic to me.

(ironmonk) 1 Cor 9:5 does not say that Peter remained sexually active... Many bishops in the early Church gave us sexual relations once they became bishops...

We are not animals that must mate as if we were in heat.

(Me) But 1 Cor 9:5 does say that apostles (whom you consider to be the forerunners of bishops) had the right to take along a believing wife. The modern Catholic Church denies such a right to bishops. I have no idea whether or not to assume that Peter actually did take with him a believing wife (which seems to be implied), or if he just had the right to do so. Whatever the case, as I said before, I don't consider it too important of a question.

First of all, we are the CATHOLIC CHURCH! We are NOT the Catholic Church! Please have enough respect for us to call the Church by its proper name.

In addition, in the Church's early centuries, there were many bishops and even popes who were married. But no, the Church doesn't deny bishops the right to marry; they freely choose not to marry once they choose to become priests. Besides, it's a Church DISCIPLINE that priests can't be married, not a DOCTRINE. The former can be changed, but the latter can't. But anyway, St. Paul was celibate and a bishop, and yet you don't seem to have any objections to that!

(ironmonk) The context of those verses is as follows:

[4-12a]Apparently some believe that Paul is not equal to the other apostles and therefore does not enjoy equal privileges. His defense on this point (here and in 1 Cor 9:13-14) reinforces the assertion of his apostolic character in 1 Cor 9:2. It consists of a series of analogies from natural equity (7) and religious custom (1 Cor 9:13) designed to establish his equal right to support from the churches (1 Cor 9:4-6,11-12a); these analogies are confirmed by the authority of the law (1 Cor 9:8-10) and of Jesus himself (1 Cor 9:14).

(Me) I don't see how this is relevant. I'm interpreting the verse as suggesting that a fundamental right of an apostle was to take along a believing wife if he so desired.

So what makes you think that your interpretation is correct? Why couldn't you possibly be wrong?

Edited September 17, 2003 by Dave