|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 22, 2008 19:50:30 GMT -5
Ok, lets look at it this way.... If Jesus taught the Apostles what He wanted to be Gods way, and they were sent to preach.... the HOW can there be so many versions of the truth? What "church" exactly believes what the Apostles preached? Not every church can teach what they taught if they are all teaching different. I dont see why this is hard to understant....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 19:52:03 GMT -5
No, it was Jesus who called Simon "Rock".
Those verses you quoted have nothing to do with Matthew 16. They are in no way related.
Let me remind you of the breakdown of Matthew 16 where I proved that Jesus was referring to Simon, the son of John while He was talking:
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 19:52:14 GMT -5
Do you have any scriptures that say that Jesus "didn't" give The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone?
That would be one way of supporting your belief.
Another would be to provide a scripture where Jesus literally gives The Keys to someone else or where He states that they are for everybody.
I'm assuming you're talking about a physical church (the building), right?
Ok, how many keys does Jesus' "one" Church need?
Jesus literally said "I will give you The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven".
He was addressing Peter.
When He addressed The Apostles after this, the text makes a distinction between Peter and The Apostles.
I can't see it any other way than how it's literally written.
He was talking to Peter and Peter only when He said He'd give the Keys.
David had them first, then Jesus, then Peter, then to whomever succeeded Peter and to his successor and so on all the way to The Pope (father of The Church) today.
Two points there...that anybody who does God's work has The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven.
Ok, that would require scriptural support in order for it to be considered a Biblical belief. Without The Scriptures, it's conjecture. Which is fine by me. So long as we call it what it is...Biblical or not.
As for your proof, let's study the text past the passing of The Keys to Peter:
Matthew 16
Here, Jesus is surely addressing all The Apostles.
Only Peter responds. Since only Peter responds, Jesus addresses only Peter and He only called Peter "rock" (He didn't call all of the Disciples "rocks" because none of them answered).
God only chose Peter to reveal Who Jesus was. God didn't choose the other Disciples to give His revelation to.
Another proof that Jesus was addressing Peter, it says "And Jesus answered and said unto him...", not them or all of them or everybody, but only "unto him"; Peter.
Here, Jesus tells Peter that his answer didn't come from any man, but from God The Father. This isn't Peter's revelation (it didn't come from him, he is just a man of flesh and blood). It's God's revelation to Peter.
And He is still only talking to Peter.
Here, Jesus changes Simon's name to "rock" and tells him that He will build His Church upon him. Hell will not corrupt The Church.
"And"...While talking to Peter and Peter only, He connects the two sentiments with an "And".
Jesus says that He will give "thee" the Keys. Thee is a singular word meaning "the objective case of thou". One singular person, not a group of men or the world or anybody but the person being addressed.
He was talking to Peter when He said this only. Notice, Jesus says "I will give you" (not you all or all of you) while talking to Peter who He refers to in the singular "thou" (American Heritage Dictionary/ thou Used to indicate the one being addressed, especially in a literary, liturgical, or devotional context.).
Now, the text of scripture says "Then...". This word "Then" separates the two conversations.
He was talking to Peter first, "then" He talked to the Disciples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 19:53:32 GMT -5
The whole petros/petrus/petras debate has been had already.
Now, those terms are from the modern Greek. The Bible was written in Koine Greek (Ancient Greek), not in modern Greek. Modern Greek words don't apply to Ancient texts. The words petrus/petras don't exist in The Bible.
Only Petros exists in The Bible. And it means only one thing...stone.
Jesus called Simon one word...stone. Little stone or fragment of a stone didn't exist in Koine Greek.
Of course, Jesus didn't actually call Peter literally Petros...He called him Cephas...the Aramaic word for rock.
The whole lilttle or fragment of a rock belief was invented by the injection of a modern language into an ancient text to discredit The Catholic Church. If it wasn't claimed that Peter is first Pope of The Catholic Church, no Protestants would've done so much research to try to discredit what the word "Peter" means.
Fact is, they use modern Greek to make manifest this "proof".
Jesus clearly said the following (this is from the Aramaic Language Bible) "literally":
Matthew 16:18
"I am also telling you that you are the Rock and on this rock I am building my Church, and the doors of sheol cannot draw it in."
Jesus didn't say "little rock" or "fragment of a rock". Jesus just said one word..."rock". And He didn't even say "Peter"...He said "Cephas" (or, just plain old rock).
My native born Greek friend cleared this all up for me when she explained what petros means.
If you do a search of the words petras/petrus online at the various Greek translation dictionaries, you will find that they don't exist in the first century. Therefore, Jesus couldn't have used words that didn't exist (as the whole language of modern Greek didnt' exist) at His time.
Of course, if you can prove that Jesus used modern Greek and not Koine Greek or Aramaic when He spoke, then you'd blow my proofs out of the water and history would be wrong.
So, now that we've established that Jesus didn't use modern Greek or even Koine Greek, but Aramaic to talk to Peter, then that leaves us with only one possible assertion...
Jesus called Simon "rock". This "rock" would go on to be the foundation of His house (Church) as He states there, in Matthew 7 and as Ephesians 2:20 states that The Apostles (of which Peter is the head) and The Prophets are the foundation of The Church (or Christs Church).
Jesus is called the corner or capstone of The Church (the visible part of the structure while the rest of the foundation is buried in soil). The cap/cornerstone on a building or structure is the one that has the information of the building on it (usually, it's builder's name and date). The foundation is buried in the soil and has no where near the prominence of the corner/capstone. Of course, we know that man is made up of what? Soil. It's proper for the men upon whom The Church is built upon are where they belong...from soil they came, back to soil they go while Jesus is shown "above" them where He belongs.
The Cap/Cornerstone goes "on top" of The Foundation (not "under" the foundation).
Makes all the sense in the world.
Yes, the old "Peter's revelation" is the "rock". Not exactly unreasonable to believe except that you would have to completely deconstruct the rest of Matthew 16, Matthew 7 and Eph 2 because they all support that Jesus nor any words are the foundation of The Church.
What you are saying is Jesus called Simon "rock", but He is changing the definition of the word "rock" midway through the same sentence or using the exact same word to mean two different things in the same sentence.
That is seriously adding to what is there in plain sight:
You are rock and upon this rock I will build My Church"
Unless, you think that Jesus gave the Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven to a "phrase" (a "confession" that never came from Peter in the first place, but from God). In essence, you are saying that Jesus gave the Keys to God's Revelation because the scripture clearly teaches that the revelation wasn't Peter's nor any man's but God's).
And, that Jesus gave authority to bind and loosen in heaven and on earth to a group of words that floated away into history in the air once Peter said them. And, that since they were God's words (not Peter's), that Jesus basically gave the Keys to His Father who pretty much gave the Keys first to David, then to Jesus.
See how many tracks it can go on when you attempt to try to apply "modern" theories that didnt' exist until the 16th Century to Scriptures from the 1st Century?
Plainly put:
Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock" and in the same sentence, without any mention to Himself, Jesus says something that will go on to be confirmed from a prophecy in Matthew 7 and later in Eph 2, that He will build His Church upon Peter and The Apostles and The Prophets (The Book of Revelations clearly show The Apostles as the foudnation of The Church as well in Heaven).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 19:54:09 GMT -5
Let's take that scripture from every possible translation (at least, the reasonable ones):
Matthew 16:18
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
King James Bible
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
American King James Version
And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
American Standard Version
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Bible in Basic English
And I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock will my church be based, and the doors of hell will not overcome it.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Darby Bible Translation
And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it.
English Revised Version
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
You are Peter, and I can guarantee that on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will not overpower it.
Weymouth New Testament
And I declare to you that you are Peter, and that upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the might of Hades shall not triumph over it.
Webster's Bible Translation
And I say also to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
World English Bible
I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
Young's Literal Translation
'And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
I think we can agree they all mostly say the same thing, the Simon is called "rock". For the sake of argument, I will use the King James Version of the verse in question (as I always do when I exchange beliefs with those who make this their preferred version of The Holy Bible).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 19:54:46 GMT -5
Matthew 16:18 King James Version
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Jesus addresses the person who answered Him that He was The Messiah, namely, Simon.
Here, Jesus calls Simon "Peter" in English, but that is a translation of the original word used which was Cephas, or rock.
Here, Jesus says that He will build His Church upon the same word that He just called Simon..."rock".
Unless there is any Biblical evidence anywhere else in The Holy Bible that a "statement" has ever been called a "rock", to believe that Jesus was referring to what Peter answered when He said that He would build His Church upon this particular "rock" was a direct reference to Peter's words is a matter of personal interpretation.
If one reads the verse as written within the context of the rest of the passage and compares that verse to other times that the word "rock" is used to describe The Church, they would have to completely place that one verse in a league of it's own in order to believe that it is in no way related to the other references where rock and Church are used in relation to Christ. In short, this would have to be a "one-off" belief, an acception to the norm of the Biblical relationship between rock and Church.
And I would not argue that with any man. We are all entitled to believe in The Bible as we see fit and to take what we read however we want to. And I'd respect that.
Jesus promises that The Church that Peter will start will not be overcome by Satan as has been the case for 2,000 years. The Church that Peter led in The New Testament is still here.
It is The Universal Christian Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 19:55:21 GMT -5
Matthew 7
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Matthew 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Ephesians 2
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 20:29:00 GMT -5
No for several reasons...firstly, the absence of of something in scritpure doesn't make it non-existant in Christian history. Take The Doctrine of The Holy Trinity. No Apostle nor Jesus give us The Doctrine (the collection of teachings in their entirety as one group to form a "Doctrine"), yet, we believe in it.
Peter never mentioned The Holy Bible...yet some rely on nothing else "but" The Holy Bible to get everything they believe in regarding Jesus Christ.
Now, let's define "ecclesiastical hierarchy" (putting aside that you are using a 3rd Century term and trying to apply it to a request for a pre-1st Century definition):
ec·cle·si·as·ti·cal
–adjective
of or pertaining to the church or the clergy; churchly; clerical; not secular.
hi·er·ar·chy
–noun, plural -chies.
1. any system of persons or things ranked one above another.
2. government by ecclesiastical rulers.
3. the power or dominion of a hierarch.
4. an organized body of ecclesiastical officials in successive ranks or orders: the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
5. one of the three divisions of the angels, each made up of three orders, conceived as constituting a graded body.
6. Also called celestial hierarchy. the collective body of angels.
7. government by an elite group.
8. Linguistics. the system of levels according to which a language is organized, as phonemic, morphemic, syntactic, or semantic.
Just so we're on the same page, it's agreeable that an "ecclesiastical hierarchy" is the "Church Leadership" (example: bishops, deacons, helpers and the such that were chosen in The New Testament...a Deacon was subordinate to a Bishop, a Bishop to The Apostles, etc...).
Now, since The Church didn't exist until "after" Jesus died and made the Sacrifice, it wouldn't be mentioned in the present tense before Jesus' death and ressurection.
So, when was The Church born? After Jesus' ressurection in The Upper Room. Who was there? The same one whom Jesus commissioned to Shepherd His Flock.
So, we know that the "ecclesia" (Church) exists.
Ok, now what happened after that?
A heirchy was developed.
There were Bishops and Deacons as well as Layity (helpers) chosen to run The Church and to administer what Christ taught. Councils were held and teachings were discussed. Strict rules were layed out by The Apostles showing that they practiced authority over the Disciples (The Flock).
Even Paul who was commissioned by God didn't begin his ministry until "after" he had consuled with Peter for weeks (again, Peter who was the leader of The Apostles).
Ok then, show me another verse where anyone is singled out by Jesus to tend and to feed His Sheep (remember, we are looking for Jesus' actual words, not your conjecture based on your personal interpretation of Scripture):
In the words of CradleCatholic, which one of the 30,000+ seperate (C)churches that call themselves Christian is it?
Identify it. Name it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 20:32:08 GMT -5
Oh, almost forgot, there was a Church (ecclisiastical) Leadership (heirchly) established in the New Testament.
Now, what do The First Christians before The Holy Bible was created believe?
Pope Clement I
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Hermas
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).
Dionysius of Corinth
"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).
The Martyrs of Lyons
"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).
Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).
"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).
"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
Firmilian
"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).
Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).
|
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 22, 2008 22:51:49 GMT -5
Instead of signing your posts with "PAX" you should consider signing your posts "XEROX". You are the internet copy / paste king. ;D The Catholic Answers website has provided alot of information just for people to copy and paste.. but I would be careful.. if the information is not accurate you will be answerable to God for using it. Ok, that would require scriptural support in order for it to be considered a Biblical belief. Without The Scriptures, it's conjecture. Which is fine by me. So long as we call it what it is...Biblical or not. That goes both ways... you cannot prove that Jesus never gave the keys to anyone other than Peter... so to base your whole ecclesiastical hierarchy on the foundation of conjecture is purely irresponsible. But, you also cannot explicitly state that Jesus would not have given the keys to ALL of the disciples, had they all answered the question correctly... that's my point. I am suggesting that ANYONE who receives the same revelation that Peter received also has the keys because they are enabled to present themselves as a witness of Jesus Christ. You're leaning to heresy to prove a point.. for you to make this point you would have to agree with Augustine that no-one has the ability to make a decision... in fact, you are wasting your time trying to convince me, because (according to your logic) God has not enabled me to believe the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 23:30:11 GMT -5
Yes I can. The Bible only says that He said He would give them to Simon, not that He would give them to Simon and to anybody else who proclaimed this faith.
Hypotheticals. Let's stick with what "actually" happend and not what coulda/woulda/shoulda.
Suggestions are just that...just suggestions. Now, can we get back to the facts?
|
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 22, 2008 23:38:25 GMT -5
Suggestions are just that...just suggestions. Now, can we get back to the facts? The fact is... Jesus never said He was ONLY giving the keys to Peter. To say anything more than that is adding to the scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 22, 2008 23:43:22 GMT -5
Suggestions are just that...just suggestions. Now, can we get back to the facts? The fact is... Jesus never said He was ONLY giving the keys to Peter. To say anything more than that is adding to the scripture. The fact is, you don't know that. Not everything that Jesus said is written in The Bible. You cannot state that as a fact. You can only go by what is actually written as far as what Jesus actually said. Jesus only told Peter that He would give him The Keys. To say anything more than that is adding to the scripture Now, can you provide a quote or even an illusion of what you are trying to pass off as fact by using scripture? I can provide the scripture that Jesus promised the Keys only to Peter. |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 22, 2008 23:56:29 GMT -5
The fact is, you don't know that. Not everything that Jesus said is written in The Bible. You cannot state that as a fact. You can only go by what is actually written as far as what Jesus actually said. Jesus only told Peter that He would give him The Keys. To say anything more than that is adding to the scripture Now, can you provide a quote or even an illusion of what you are trying to pass off as fact by using scripture? I can provide the scripture that Jesus promised the Keys only to Peter. OK... let's have it.  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 22, 2008 23:58:13 GMT -5
jhardin... could you answer my post?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 0:19:54 GMT -5
The fact is, you don't know that. Not everything that Jesus said is written in The Bible. You cannot state that as a fact. You can only go by what is actually written as far as what Jesus actually said. Jesus only told Peter that He would give him The Keys. To say anything more than that is adding to the scripture Now, can you provide a quote or even an illusion of what you are trying to pass off as fact by using scripture? I can provide the scripture that Jesus promised the Keys only to Peter. OK... let's have it. Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 0:24:01 GMT -5
Suggestions are just that...just suggestions. Now, can we get back to the facts? The fact is... Jesus never said He was ONLY giving the keys to Peter. To say anything more than that is adding to the scripture. Matthew 16:17-19 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. thee () pron. The objective case of thou1 1. a. Used as the direct object of a verb. b. Used as the indirect object of a verb. 2. Used as the object of a preposition. 3. Used in the nominative as well as the objective case, especially by members of the Society of Friends. |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 23, 2008 0:24:22 GMT -5
jhardin... could you answer my post? Sorry, I must have missed it... This is a loaded question. For a short answer, I think Paul summed it up nicely when he said "we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face". Even the Apostle Paul didn't claim to understand everything perfectly. I think the reason not everyone agrees on doctrine is mainly because we are sinners, and we are fallible. We don't have the full understanding of God, and in our current state we couldn't handle the fullness of the knowledge of God. So God has revealed "pieces" of truth to us... and therefore we misconstrue them. Another reason there is such divergence of doctrine I think is because there are so many false teachers out there who are striving to corrupt the truth of God. It has been proven sociologically that people will convince themselves of lies in order to be accepted... and God's people are not excluded of this. That is why I believe the Bible is so important. It is God's benchmark of truth for His Children to resort to in order to check false teaching. Of course, if a person has convinced themselves of a lie, they can always find a verse out of context to prove to themselves they believe the truth. Personal sincerity, and humble search for the truth is the only way to make sure we as individuals are right with God. Theological arguments will never end, because there will always be people who have convinced themselves of lies and heresies. But Biblical arguments will always reveal the truth. |
|
jhardin
Junior Member
"...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the (c)atholic (spiritual) Church." Ignatius 110 A.D.
Posts: 65
|
Post by jhardin on May 23, 2008 0:26:50 GMT -5
Nope... Jesus didn't say Peter was the ONLY one to receive the keys. You're trying to prove something that isn't there Cepha.
Try again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 0:27:23 GMT -5
jhardin... could you answer my post? Sorry, I must have missed it... This is a loaded question. For a short answer, I think Paul summed it up nicely when he said "we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face". Even the Apostle Paul didn't claim to understand everything perfectly. I think the reason not everyone agrees on doctrine is mainly because we are sinners, and we are fallible. We don't have the full understanding of God, and in our current state we couldn't handle the fullness of the knowledge of God. So God has revealed "pieces" of truth to us... and therefore we misconstrue them. Another reason there is such divergence of doctrine I think is because there are so many false teachers out there who are striving to corrupt the truth of God. It has been proven sociologically that people will convince themselves of lies in order to be accepted... and God's people are not excluded of this. That is why I believe the Bible is so important. It is God's benchmark of truth for His Children to resort to in order to check false teaching. Of course, if a person has convinced themselves of a lie, they can always find a verse out of context to prove to themselves they believe the truth. Personal sincerity, and humble search for the truth is the only way to make sure we as individuals are right with God. Theological arguments will never end, because there will always be people who have convinced themselves of lies and heresies. But Biblical arguments will always reveal the truth. I would've just answered "misguided personal interpretation". |
|
