For Heaven's Sake by Mike Morgan for April 12, 2010

Nope, never heard an anti-war sermon in the 60s

Maybe we should also require politicians to quit taking pulpits for political speeches at predominately African-American churches.

What ‘60’s did you live through Lew 1860’s? Lots of Revs were walking those picket lines then, too.

Good idea, Ray. No politics in Church is the best politic.

Christianity has always been “anti-war” ….”Christians” on the other hand….. But electioneering in church is & should be a BIG “no no!” Else we forget who we are there to worship. Good Christians can disagree, outside of the church service, but on the basics, they should be in agreement, or be quiet. The Bible Study & small group studies, well, that’s a different venue where opinions AND Christian love should be able to shared freely, recognizing the other person’s right to hold opposing opinions & still be a child of God.

The background noise is the sound of his church’s tax-exempt status being yanked.

the “fox” button…does she like the station that’s so one sided, it cant’ see the forest for the black president?!?!?! A christian cartoon that’s judgmental…that’s God’s scriptures for you..”you without sin, can cast all the stones you want!”

Mr. Doty, did you happen to overlook Gal 2:11-14? Peter/Kephas is in Antioch (with Paul and others from James)? Kephas is the Aramaic form of Peter’s name (itself Greek, meaning, roughly, “Rocky”)

FREEHOLDER Look up “sarcasm”.

I would not say it is lectures, I would say it is sharing of information.

On Antioch, there were actually two of them the second was known as Antioch in Pisidia - which also is in Asia minor and is about half way to Greece from Jerusalem and of course Rome was another long trip beyond that..

We do know that Paul was executed in Rome. I would have to agree with Mr. Doty, that there is no indication in the Biblical text that Peter left the region. This is where extra-Biblical writings and traditions start to come in.

Mr. Doty, my training had Peter as the head of the Jerusalem church with his ministry to the Jews and Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. I would have to go back and do some digging to find out why Peter would leave Jerusalem to go to Rome. I think the “why” would be more compelling that the “if”.

On the other hand, while the Bible does not give any other indication that Peter left the region of Syria-Palestine, history gives only one place that claims Peter’s death and burial, and some (at least) of his ministry: Rome. And that from a rather early date, at least by the year 80 or 100.

It’s one thing to say that the Bible is true, and another thing to believe nothing true but what is found in the Bible…

Very likely, and corroborated by tradition: James, being more conservative, was the leader of the Jerusalem Christians (by about the mid-40s or so), while Peter moved on to more moderate areas, such as Antioch, and eventually Rome. Of course, not confirmed by the Bible, but confirmed through historical evidence.

Been busy - but I want to throw my 2 cents in - I think the leader of the Jerusalem church thing is sort of a both is correct answer. Here is why I think that. Before the councils you”all are talking about, I would consider Acts 1:15-26 and Acts 2:14-40 as showing his leadership of the apostles (pre-Paul). See also Acts 4:8-13Depending on how you view the councils Paul was given the gentiles (Acts 15 or Gal 2:1-10) as his missionary concern and Peter the Jews. Sort of making Peter the defacto leader of that region. But after this incident Peter disappears from the NT and James takes over as sole leader of the Jerusalem church. So in a way I think both answers are correct. Peter apparently went traveling (1 Cor 9:5) maybe to Corinth and then the places listed in 1 Peter 1:1.

Now from what I know - extra biblical sources say Peter was martyred under Nero in 64AD. Also tradition claims that St. Peter’s is built over his burial place. There are some issues when it is claimed Peter was in Rome for an extended period. Even a casual reading of Romans lets one know that Paul speaks strongly about his love for Israel. It is strange if Peter was there that he did not acknowledge him - but I would not use silence as proof. Of more concern is that when Paul is sent to Rome, there is no mention of Peter. Interesting though that Paul does not mention him in any of the epistles if he were out somewhere traveling (1 Pet 5:13) or while Paul is in prison - consider these verses - 2 Tim 4:6,10-12, 16,17.

One sort of interesting thing is Peter was married and his wife accompanied him (1 Cor 9:5) - I think it is time that was allowed.

I will try and rejoin the discussion on the weekend.

I agree, I had to write an article once on Andrew and there is not a lot about him in the NT other than he seemed to be more of the evangelist and go to problem solver guy. But there is a lot of spurious or pseudopigraphal info that is really wild stuff, the City of the Cannibals being one writing. I think the spurious stuff comes about when there is a gap in what was in scripture and people tried to fill in the blanks. Another example would be Jesus’ childhood had folks trying to fill the time gap.

Your comment on Luke is appropriate and supports that as an independent writer, had Peter been around he would have documented it, so I would suspect if Peter did show up in Rome it was not while Paul was there. Paul was always quick to mention those who helped him and hindered.

Where are the cucumber sandwiches, petit fours and other snacks? What happenned to never discussing politics in polite company? What are your plans to help the local community? What about the polite backstabbing?

The ‘Ladies Auxiliary’ is where polite church ladies are supposed to discuss the more controversial subjects such as politics.

Lewreader, I never heard an anti-war (or pro-war) sermon in the 60s either.

Joe, that’s ladies’ (the plural possessive of lady)