How did Peter hear about Jesus?

Discussion in 'Bible Chat' started by פNIʞƎƎS, May 11, 2017.

  1. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    According to Mark Chapter 1:14-20, Jesus personally called Peter and Andrew as He went along the Sea of Galilee.

    14 Now after John was imprisoned, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. 15 He said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!” 16 As he went along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, Simon’s brother, casting a net into the sea (for they were fishermen). 17 Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will turn you into fishers of people.” 18 They left their nets immediately and followed him. 19 Going on a little farther, he saw James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother in their boat mending nets. 20 Immediately he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

    However, according to John 1:35-42, Andrew, Peter's brother, went and told Peter they found the Messiah and Andrew took Peter to Jesus.

    35 Again the next day John was standing there with two of his disciples. 36 Gazing at Jesus as he walked by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” 37 When John’s two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around and saw them following and said to them, “What do you want?” So they said to him, “Rabbi” (which is translated Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 Jesus answered, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon.
    40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said and followed Jesus. 41 He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah!” (which is translated Christ). 42 Andrew brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

    So, which is it?
    I never noticed this before, but I was reading Mark today, and having watched the Gospel of John movie over the weekend , I remember the Andrew scenario.
  2. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    John descibes a scenario before John the Baptist was imprisoned, and Andrew was his disciple first. Mark describes a scenario after the imprisonment, so maybe it had something to do with that. Choosing to become someone's disciple was no small commitment after all. Maybe it took some convincing?
  3. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Don't make me hangry Staff Member

    From Norman Geisler...

    JOHN 1:37–49—Were the apostles called at this time or later?
    PROBLEM: John records that Jesus called Andrew, Peter, Philip, Nathanael, and another disciple at this time. However, the other Gospels record their call as taking place much later (cf. Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11). When were they called?
    SOLUTION: The first passages indicate Jesus’ initial interview of the disciples, not their permanent call. As a result of this first contact they only stayed with Jesus “that day” (John 1:39), after which they returned to their homes and regular employment. The later passages indicate the time they left their former jobs and took up their full-time ministry as disciples of Christ.
  4. The Parson

    The Parson Your friendly neighborhood parson Staff Member

    That makes perfect sense. There's a few instances where timelines seem to cause discrepancies until you realize that those instances take place at different times. There's one place where a young king that was captured by, I think it was Babylon, vetted, and then placed back on the throne some ten years later in another book in the OT. Can't remember what his name was right now but, if you don't know the circumstances, you would think it was a discrepancy. Can't remember what his name was.
  5. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    Those seem like very reasonable theories. However, as I continue to read John I see that, the next day, he also calls Philip, and tells him "follow Me", and Philip calls Nathanael. And then in Chapter 2 it says on the third day, Jesus is at a wedding in Cana with His disciples. So it appears they were already following him.

    John 1:43-51

    43 On the next day Jesus wanted to set out for Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44 (Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter.) 45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael replied, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip replied, “Come and see.”

    47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and exclaimed, “Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” 48 Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?” Jesus replied, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!” 50 Jesus said to him, “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 He continued, “I tell all of you the solemn truth—you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

    John 2:1-2 ; 12-13

    Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.

    12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days. 13 Now the Jewish feast of Passover was near, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

    So it looks like 3 consecutive days of the first 4 Apostles/Disciples were with Jesus once they had the initial encounter.
  6. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Don't make me hangry Staff Member

    Any harmony of the Gospels with commentary admits to difficulties at points. I'm talking off the top of my head. It's possible that Jesus called then to be learners. They hung with him that day. Weddings reportedly were big deals in the culture so being with disciples for a few days around the wedding might not imply they were in full-blown internship yet. A time where they'd get together with him, maybe even go on little retreats with him, but hadn't left their jobs. Much like us. But then later they leave everything behind.
  7. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    As I don't hold to any doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture, I'm 100% fine with discrepancies (AKA difficulties). There are actually quite a lot. So I personally don't worry about it, nor do I try too hard to make everything "harmonize" when really, it doesn't.

    I'm sure there are perfectly good explanations for all these discrepancies, but since the original authors are long dead, we'll have to wait for the resurrection to get everything resolved (if it even matters at that point, which I doubt it will). Until then, it's anybody's best educated guess, really.

    Having said that -- I concur with Joe that calling disciples probably was something that took time, because the commitment was so great, which is why we see different accounts with different timelines. I would think that a disciple of John the Baptist wouldn't have just switched to following Jesus, without John giving his blessing. Also remember that Jesus and John were cousins who probably grew up together, so I think that Jesus, who had a high regard for John, would have made sure that John's disciples were properly taken care of, especially with John being imprisoned and then later beheaded. We have to remember that these were actual people and subject to the same relationship dynamics, etc., that affect us also.

    What probably didn't happen was "oh, there's Jesus ... I know I was committed to John but psssh, we're done with him now ... see ya!" Smacking you with a fish.

    More reading on discipleship (and also what it means to "believe"):
  8. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    If there weren't a few discrepancies between the accounts of four different authors I would probably be more suspicious. Also, I can't recall which one it is, but it's not laid out strictly chronologically anyway (John?)
  9. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    Thanks Dani. Very informative post.
  10. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    I suppose under normal circumstances, by that I mean other than the Bible, I could accept that. But the issue for me is, if men were led by the Holy Spirit to write down what they wrote, would the Holy Spirit also give 2 different accounts?
  11. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    And yes I also can accept that John's Gospel wasn't necessarily completely chronological.

    Look, I don't believe in the grand scheme of things this matters much, but it just caught my attention when I read it. And it got me curious.
  12. Cloudwalker

    Cloudwalker The genuine, original, one and only Cloudwalker Staff Member

    Another thing to consider is that there were 3 potential sections in a boys education. In the first, the one each male went through, you ended up memorizing and being able to quote the Pentateuch. The next phase was if the boy showed aptitude he would continue and eventually be able to quote the rest of the Scripture. The third phase is when a Rabbi came along and called the boy to "follow me." When this happened the Rabbi was telling the boy that he could do what the Rabbi was doing. I'm sure that this fact was not missed by the disciples. Nor by those who later read their writings.
  13. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    The Holy Spirit isn't giving the accounts, people are. The Holy Spirit is merely providing inspiration (meaning "hey John, you should write all that stuff down that happened, as you remember it, so there is a written account that other people can benefit from after you're gone and your memories die with you").

    Inspiration doesn't mean verbatim dictation, it just means God lays on people's hearts to do and say certain things, but the human agent matters just as much. It's a joint effort. Otherwise, why use people? Surely God is plenty literate to write stuff down His own self, should He so choose. ;)
  14. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Don't make me hangry Staff Member

    Matthew wrote topically a lot. His is not completely chronological.
  15. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    Hmm. You've given me some stuff to think about. Thank you.
  16. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Don't make me hangry Staff Member

    Inspiration comes from the Greek word θεόπνευστος. The word is literally "God breathed". All Scripture is God breathed. The word for Scripture is γραφή or writing. The writings are God breathed.

    God cannot err.
    The writings are breathed by God.
    Therefore, writings cannot err.
  17. teddyv

    teddyv The horse is in the barn. Staff Member

    So pi is equal to 3? :)
  18. פNIʞƎƎS

    פNIʞƎƎS Connoisseur of Memes Staff Member

    The Greek word, transliterated, is theopneustos.
    So that's why I made my original comment about the human factor not being an issue.
  19. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Don't make me hangry Staff Member

    Pi is not equal to 3.14. We round it off to two decimal points. What does it round to if we round it to none?
  20. DaniH

    DaniH You're probably fine.

    Adam had God's own life breathed into him too (Gen 2:7). Yet, Adam sinned and was certainly not inerrant.

    I don't quite understand how "God breathed" came to mean "inerrant", when from Genesis onward human agents still had the freedom of choice, regardless of God breathing upon or in them?

    I agree with "God cannot err". I also agree with "the writings are breathed by God."

    Not following on the leap to #3 based upon what "God breathed" would have meant to a 1st Century A.D. Israelite Pharisee such as Paul in light of its use in the OT.

Share This Page