Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

20

A cock's crow can be heard from a long distance, depending on various factors, so there is no reason to assume the bird was within the temple area. Given it could be simply and literally a cock's crow, there seems to be no logic in searching for another, more complicated explanation, which would need to be backed up by strong historical evidence to have, in ...


9

As has already been pointed out, the progression is Jesus ἀγαπᾷς ἀγαπάω Verb Second Present Active Indicative Singular Peter φιλῶ φιλέω Verb First Present Active Indicative Singular Jesus ἀγαπᾷς ἀγαπάω Verb Second Present Active Indicative Singular Peter φιλῶ φιλέω Verb First Present Active Indicative Singular ...


8

This is a good question because the Mishnah (m.Bava Kamma 7:7) states that: אין מגדלין תרנגולים בירושלים. We may not raise chickens in Jerusalem. The reason for this is not the dung directly (dung is not actually ritually unclean). But there is a concern that the chickens may contaminate the sacrifices with the unclean creatures they might drag ...


6

I Personally Believe Peter Denied Christ Exactly Six Times I did a study of this exact problem in my seminary studies for my M.Div., and just looking at the textual details and collating the accounts came to the conclusion that the answer is best resolved as seeing it as two sets of denials of three each, with each group of the three occurring prior to a ...


5

The confusing passage here seems to be Matthew's account, which we will come to in due course. The other accounts, including the apocryphal Gospel of Peter give rather clear indications of timing, so we begin by examining them: When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint ...


5

To begin, we need to remember something very basic, that is nevertheless taken for granted by modern readers: the ancient world didn't have audio recording. In the specific case of Acts 2, Peter's speech is portrayed as an impromptu reaction to accusations of drunkenness. Short of believing God himself told the author of Acts exactly what Peter said, it is ...


5

Here is the text of Matthew 16:18 set out in Greek of Nestle-Aland 27 and English of ESV (as above): κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, kagō de soi legō hoti su ei Petros And I tell you, you are Peter, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν kai epi tautē tē(i) petra(i) oikodomēsō mou tēn ekklēsian and on this rock I will build ...


4

I don't see an inherent conflict between these passages. Specifically, the John passage describes how both Andrew and Simon initially met Jesus; the Matthew passage describes how He called them as disciples. Matthew never claims that the event by the seashore was Jesus' first encounter with the brothers. Edit: In the account of John, Peter meets Jesus ...


3

There's significant discussion regarding the ending of John and how disjointed it seems (specifically, chapter 20). This has led some to hypothesize that John's gospel has been edited a few times. These could be insertions from the Johannine community revising an original document. Take it for what it's worth. I've also heard that could be a form of ...


3

I tend to just take ἄγγελος as simply messenger in this context. As the word is around ½ of the time simply meaning messenger and the other ½ of the time meaning an angel (i.e. messenger from God) we must choose from the context. Imagine we are praying for Peter and an excited woman told us Peter was at the door. She claims she 'heard' Peter through the ...


3

In The Resurrection of the Son of God, N. T. Wright points out that continued existence after death was a belief that divided the Sadducees and the Pharisees: Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the ...


2

According to Vincent word studies the word  'Akeldamach' is Aramaic, the language then spoken in Palestine. The reason why it seems legitamate to consider verses 18 and 19 to be within brackets as a comment of Luke, as in the ESV, is because the aduience to whom Peter is speaking to would have understood Aramaic as Peter was addressing a crowd in Jerusalem. ...


2

The issue that John is addressing is that no one went into the tomb unaccompanied. John arrived first, but did not go in. His testimony is that he did not disturb anything before Peter got there. "...who was behind him" does not emphasize that John was first but that Peter, and not another, was second. The final reference simply clarified which "other ...


2

I believe there were not more than three denials, based on the Two Sources hypothesis accepted in one form or another by the majority of New Testament critical scholars. This hypothesis states that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on Mark's Gospel, with some further material, mainly sayings attributed to Jesus, from the hypothetical ...


2

An alternative view of the resurrection of Christ holds that Jesus rose from the dead late on, or at the close of, the Sabbath day. Although Matthew 28:1 is generally used as support for this minority opinion a comparison of related accounts should dispel any such notion. Looking at Mt 28:1 (KJV): In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward ...


2

I take it as being they thought Peter's guardian angel had assumed his appearance to talk to them. We should note that this interpretation does not mean the Bible is teaching that guardian angels can assume their wards appearance but that these believing Jews in the first century believed such to be true. The understanding of Peter's aggelos being his ...


2

Short answer: Jesus was referring to the authority Peter would have as an elder in making judgments regarding church discipline; he would be an emissary of the divine court, delivering verdicts that had already been determined in heaven. Matthew 16:19 is an excellent example of why it is crucial to read the text in the original language prior to drawing ...


1

If the author is not the apostle Peter, we can never establish from the text who the real author was. However, the text can help establish whether Peter or another author wrote this epistle, and if another author then perhaps in what timeframe it was written. I think Susan has dealt with the issue of vocabulary very well, and I would endorse this, noting ...


1

The first two occasion Jesus says 'do you love me' using αγαπας which is the word chosen in the LLX and NT to refer to the command of God to love from the Old Testament. In reply Peter only uses φιλω which seems to be a more earthly or humble or 'less noble and commanding' confession of his love. The possible meaning seems clear when recognizing that this ...


1

John appears to have been written later than the synoptic gospels. John may have written it specifically to bring to light other events that had not been documented by the other three. If that was his goal, the events to which John was a unique witness would naturally be high on that list.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible