BaptistBoard.com  
     

Increase font size: 0, 10, 25, 50%
Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Left Container Right Container
 
Go Back   BaptistBoard.com > Baptist Board.com Archives (read only) > 2000-02 Archive

2000-02 Archive 2000-2002 Archive.

Fewer Ads for Registered Users - Register Now!

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-23-2001, 05:05 AM
word_digger word_digger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Currently stationed in Munich, Germany
Posts: 198
Post

In the Gospel of John, which was written later than the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, there are verses which, if taken on face value, indicate that Judas Iscariot was the biological son of Simon Peter. These verses are: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joh 13:26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joh 13:2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joh 12:4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The possibility that these verses are speaking of Simon Peter, instead of some other person named Simon, is supported by the fact that Simon Peter is the ONLY "Simon" mentioned throughout the Gospel of John, whereas in the other Gospels there are many other Simons mentioned. The conclusion, therefore, is that since John's Gospel only mention's Simon Peter, the verses stating that Judas Iscariot was Simon's son, or the son of Simon, MUST be a reference to Simon Peter.

This would go a long way in explaining Simon Peter's shift in behavior from first defending His Lord with a sword when Judas and the band came to take Jesus, then shortly afterwards publically denying his Lord: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. (John 18:25-27) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imagine how torn Peter must have been, when the Lord he loved was betrayed by the son he also must have loved if, indeed, Judas was his biological son.
  #2  
Old 06-23-2001, 11:28 AM
swaimj swaimj is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,426
Post

I disagree for three reasons.

1. In John 13, John refers to Peter as Simon Peter or Peter. That these references are to the same Peter is clear. So the person named Simon would appear to be someone different.

2. The synoptics and John are clear in the accounts of the calling of the disciples that Peter had a brother named Andrew. They are also clear that James and John are brothers. Why, in these accounts would they never mention that Judas is Peter's son?

3. Judas is from Iscariot which is a town in Judah, but Peter was from Galilee, in the north.
__________________

  #3  
Old 06-23-2001, 12:38 PM
word_digger word_digger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Currently stationed in Munich, Germany
Posts: 198
Post

swaimj,
Not to put too finer point on the subject, but what was to prevent Peter, a fisherman from Galilee, from traveling to the region of Keriothite and fathering a child out of wedlock? The man was not exactly a saint before the Lord showed up. Could not Peter be subject to the same temptations as other men? Let's be realistic.
  #4  
Old 06-23-2001, 12:44 PM
Timotheus Timotheus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 207
Lightbulb

Word_Digger, by consulting any Bible Encyclopedia you would come to the conclusion that your assumptions listed above are erroneous. First of all, the name Simon was a pretty common name in the Bible. In the New Testament there are no less than 9 different families recorded. They are:

(1) Simon, the son of Jonas, and brother of Andrew, who was surnamed Peter by the Lord Jesus, and Cephas, Aramaic for “rock” (Matt. 4:18, 16:17, 18, etc).
(2) Simon, another disciple of Jesus, called the “Canaanite,” a member of the party later called “the Zealots” (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18).
(3) Simon, the leper of Bethany, in whose house Jesus’ head was anointed (Matt. 26:6; Mark 14:3).
(4) Simon, a brother of the Lord (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3).
(5) Simon, a man from Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus, who was compelled to carry the cross of Jesus (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26).
(6) Simon, a Pharisee in whose house Jesus’ feet were anointed by the sinful woman (Luke 7:40, 43, 44).
(7) Simon, Judas Iscariot’s father (John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). And here may I interject that Judas and his father, Simon, were both surnamed “Iscariot” (see John 6:7). Iscariot is commonly thought to be from the Hebrew “Ish Kerioth,” i.e. “a man of Kerioth.” The village of Kerioth was in the south of Judah (Josh. 15:25).
(8) Simon, Simon Magus, a sorcerer at Samaria, with great power and influence among the people (Acts 8:9-13).
(9) Simon, a tanner, who lived at Joppa with whom Peter stayed “for many days” (Acts 9:43; 10:6, 17, 32).

If your hypothesis is correct, then would you be kind to let us know which of these Simons listed was the father of Judas? [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalm 119:11
  #5  
Old 06-23-2001, 01:10 PM
Chris Temple Chris Temple is offline
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ligonier, PA
Posts: 2,841
Unhappy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by word_digger:
swaimj,
Not to put too finer point on the subject, but what was to prevent Peter, a fisherman from Galilee, from traveling to the region of Keriothite and fathering a child out of wedlock? The man was not exactly a saint before the Lord showed up. Could not Peter be subject to the same temptations as other men? Let's be realistic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Realistic? No one in 2000 years of orthodoxy has presented this hypothesis. I think there are more realistic matters to discuss.

[ June 23, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]
  #6  
Old 06-23-2001, 04:10 PM
John Wells John Wells is offline
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 2,568
Lightbulb

word-digger,

Why don't you open up your heart to God's Word and pray asking God to reveal His truth to you? You'll get where you are seeking, but you must first seek . . . with all your heart, mind, and soul.
  #7  
Old 06-24-2001, 03:35 AM
word_digger word_digger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Currently stationed in Munich, Germany
Posts: 198
Post

Timotheus said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Word_Digger, by consulting any Bible Encyclopedia you would come to the conclusion that your assumptions listed above are erroneous. First of all, the name Simon was a pretty common name in the Bible. In the New Testament there are no less than 9 different families recorded. They are:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my message I have already acknowledged that there were many "Simons" in the Bible. Thank you for wasting your time in listing them. But the point I made is that in the Gospel of John, and throughout John's Gospel, he only mentions one particular Simon, and that is Simon Peter. You will find no reference to any other Simon in John's Gospel. Now if John was referring to another, I would think that there would be a reference to that other within his Gospel. Think about this, if you did not have the other Gospels, and you received this Gospel letter alone, buy itself, would you not also think John was referring to the same Simon mentioned throughout that letter? Of course, I'm making a logical and common sense assumption here.

Chris Temple wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Realistic? No one in 2000 years of orthodoxy has presented this hypothesis. I think there are more realistic matters to discuss. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then go elsewhere and discuss them.

wellsjs wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why don't you open up your heart to God's Word and pray asking God to reveal His truth to you? You'll get where you are seeking, but you must first seek . . . with all your heart, mind, and soul. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You judge me as unsaved and my heart is not open to God's Word simply because I started such a post? I suggest you pray to God to give you some courage to face tough issues, instead of attacking people's character just because they have made you uncomfortable.

Look, dear brethern, Simon Peter was a man, a sinner just like everybody else in the world, and it is entirely possible that he could have fathered a child out of wedlock, and that the grown child was with him when the Lord showed up. It is also very possible that the full truth of the matter was not known to the other disciples at the time.

I say this, because Peter and John later took the ministry to parts north (Babylon) departing from Matthew, Mark and Luke and the others. Since John's Gospel was the last one written, I think it is entirely possible that Peter could have confided this matter to John, and John was disposed to include it in his letter.

Now, if this was the truth, then why would God's word not mention it. I think it does. Throughout the whole Bible God points out men's sin with no reservations. David committed adultry and murdered a man for this wife; another king of Israel fathered his own brother through sexual relations with his mother (you'll find that nugget in the Chronicles, or possibly Kings, I don't have the reference handy at the moment); and there are some even grosser acts in the Bible. The point is, the truth may be ugly, but that does not make it not the truth. So don't get all bent out of shape.
Now, go ahead and burn me at the stake.
  #8  
Old 06-24-2001, 04:05 PM
Dr. Bob's Avatar
Dr. Bob Dr. Bob is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Casper, WY USA
Posts: 29,233
Send a message via ICQ to Dr. Bob
Cool

Give me a match!

No, I won't burn you for this notion that has 0% Scriptural or Historical support. We Baptist believe in soul liberty (at least some of us do) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

My question is WHY you choose, with no merit or foundation, to slur and sully the name of the Apostle Peter with such inquiry?

Among the disciples and early followers of Jesus were only two men described as "young". John Mark was a young man who became an aide to Peter and to Paul. The Apostle John was also young (hence his outliving all the other disciples by 25 years).

A logical assumption could be made that the other 11 disciples were "not young" and probably all within a similar age span. It is more than likely that Peter (from the northern shore of Galilee) and Judas (from southern Judean village of Kerioth) were about the same age.

Not father and bastard son.

Is there some anti-Catholic motivation for your view, Digger? Over the years, many Baptists have tried to denigrate Peter, thinking they were attack the papacy.

Appreciate your thoughts.
__________________
Dr Bob Griffin
"Jesus knows me, this I love"

www.sovereigngracechurch.com
www.grif.net


"Why do bad things happen to good people?
That only happened once, and He volunteered
."
  #9  
Old 06-24-2001, 04:24 PM
true vine true vine is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ellijay ga
Posts: 13
Post

This is how false doctrines and religions get started. People tried to assume what God meant or was thinking. For one thing if you doing any studing at all you would see that the term "son", was also used to show an understudy or apprentice. For instance, in 1st Timothy 1:2 states "Unto Timothy,my own son in the faith....." now we all understand that Paul never married, so then how did he have a son. If you reference son you will find out what I stated above is correct.Words of advice there digger study before you start assuming, the Bible states that we should not rely on our own understanding but on his.
  #10  
Old 06-24-2001, 05:01 PM
Chris Temple Chris Temple is offline
2,000 Posts Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ligonier, PA
Posts: 2,841
Post

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> quote:
Realistic? No one in 2000 years of orthodoxy has presented this hypothesis. I think there are more realistic matters to discuss.

Then go elsewhere and discuss them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real teachable spirit you exhibit there world digger. Which explains where the question came from.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:53 PM.


The Fundamental Top 500   The Best Baptist Web Sites at Baptist411.com  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Copyright: Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forum
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger
 
 

Christian Web Hosting for BaptistBoard.com is provided by BaptistHost.net