|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 0:31:45 GMT -5
jhardin 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. Uh, Jesus only addressed Peter. Where do you see Jesus addressing anybody else "but" Peter? What do the singular words "thee" and "thou" mean to you if He wasn't addressing just one person, which was Simon? |
|
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 0:33:53 GMT -5
I would've just answered "misguided personal interpretation". ;D Yeah... but I had to reply in my own sophisticated idiom. I've got an image to keep up ya know. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 0:34:51 GMT -5
Oh yeah, have you found the scripture that states that He gave the Keys to anybody "but" 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 23, 2008 0:37:45 GMT -5
Oh yeah, have you found the scripture that states that He gave the Keys to anybody "but" Peter? I don't have to... the burden of proof is on you. You're the one making the claim that Peter was the only one to receive the keys. All of Catholicism is depending on you proving that Peter was the only one who has ever received the keys. My worldview isn't affected by this passage. |
|
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 0:40:32 GMT -5
Uh, Jesus only addressed Peter. Where do you see Jesus addressing anybody else "but" Peter? What do the singular words "thee" and "thou" mean to you if He wasn't addressing just one person, which was Simon? Can you say with certainty (without any conjecture at all) that Jesus has not given me the keys? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 0:50:51 GMT -5
Oh yeah, have you found the scripture that states that He gave the Keys to anybody "but" Peter? I don't have to... the burden of proof is on you. You're the one making the claim that Peter was the only one to receive the keys. All of Catholicism is depending on you proving that Peter was the only one who has ever received the keys. My worldview isn't affected by this passage. No. You are the one who makes the claim that Peter wasn't the only one who was given The Keys, remember? And I did prove with Scripture that Jesus was only talking to Peter when He said that He was giving him The Keys. And, no where else in The Holy Bible does it state that Jesus gave The Keys to anyone else, so you can't provide any scriptures to counter what I posted (Matthew 16:19). The Scripture is clear...Jesus was only talking to Peter when he gave Peter The Keys and He never gave the Keys to anybody else (that is, if we go just by The Bible). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 0:52:28 GMT -5
Uh, Jesus only addressed Peter. Where do you see Jesus addressing anybody else "but" Peter? What do the singular words "thee" and "thou" mean to you if He wasn't addressing just one person, which was Simon? Can you say with certainty (without any conjecture at all) that Jesus has not given me the keys? Absolutely. The name JHardin does not appear in The Holy Bible mentioned with receiving The Davidic Keys as Prophecized in Isaiah. |
|
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 0:56:02 GMT -5
Can you say with certainty (without any conjecture at all) that Jesus has not given me the keys? Absolutely. The name JHardin does not appear in The Holy Bible mentioned with receiving The Davidic Keys as Prophecized in Isaiah. Neither did Peter according to Revelation 3:7... Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
If the chair of Peter had those keys... why would Christ say "no man openeth"? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 1:08:20 GMT -5
Absolutely. The name JHardin does not appear in The Holy Bible mentioned with receiving The Davidic Keys as Prophecized in Isaiah. Neither did Peter according to Revelation 3:7... Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
If the chair of Peter had those keys... why would Christ say "no man openeth"? Duh? By the time Revelation 3 is relevant, there is no more Peter needing to allow people into heaven. It's the end times. Hello? Jesus is in charge in Heaven where all of this is going on, not Peter. And again, a Priest is "not" considered to be a "man". Priest are set aside from regular men as Jesus showed us when He sent a Lepor that He healed to "tell no man" but show himself only to a "Priest" and to tell the Priest what happened and to do what The Priest (not a man) told him to do. And it still stands that Jesus did not give you The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven (that is, if we're going by The Bible). |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on May 23, 2008 19:26:51 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. O.K now where does it say in the Bible that there is supposed to be a succession of popes after Peter? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 20:34:48 GMT -5
Great question Alfie.
The Papacy isn't mentioned in scripture because Jesus was the leader of The Church.
As long as The Apostles were alive, they were the teaching authority (with Peter as their lead). Once The Apostles died off, men were chosen to take up where they left off.
The problem with "where in the bible" is that not even The Bible is mentioned in The Bible, nor is The Trinity by name. No where in The Bible does it mention Papal Succession either. Yet all were revealed to man by God.
History proves this.
No where does it mention Peter's death either so there would be no mention of Papal Succession.
However, Apostolic Succession "is" mentioned when Judas was succeeded by Matthias to maintain the numbers of The Apostles. They even (as is done with Popes today and with The Church's Heirchy) took a vote and cast lots to choose Judas' successor who had to meet certain criteria.
Why would The Apostles replace one of their own and not their leader? Of course they would'nt leave themselves without a leader.
Do you believe that The Apostles replaced Judas with another Apostle in order to keep the order?
Acts 1:15-26
15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2008 20:45:47 GMT -5
O.K now where does it say in the Bible that there is supposed to be a succession of popes after Peter? Oh, one more answer that might be more useful to you. Jesus said to Peter and to The Apostles that whatever they decided on earth would be upheld in heaven (not because the earthly kingdom was greater than the Heavenly Kingdom, but because their decisions were guided by Heaven). So, whatever they decided was to be accepted by those who claimed to follow Christ since they were given Christ's authority on earth. If they decided to institute an order of religious leaders (bishops, deacons, etc...), then we as Christians are supposed to follow their decisions. Jesus left them to guide and teach us and only one was left as Shepherd...Peter. After that, whoever The Church chose to succeed him is God's will. |
|
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 24, 2008 16:22:54 GMT -5
Duh? By the time Revelation 3 is relevant, there is no more Peter needing to allow people into heaven. It's the end times. Hello? Jesus is in charge in Heaven where all of this is going on, not Peter. So are you claiming that when Jesus spoke to the "Church" in Philadelphia, the church age had already passed?  To say that a Priest is some sort of "Bruce Almighty" is as blasphemous as that wicked movie. Jesus didn't tell the Leper to "go and show yourself to the Priest" because they had God's authority... He told the leper to show himself to the Priest because according to the law, if a man was cured of leprosy he could not return to the general population until he was inspected by the priest... Lev 13:16 Or if the raw flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come unto the priest;
Lev 13:17 And the priest shall see him: and, behold, if the plague be turned into white; then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean.Not the keys your talking about, and according to Revelation 3... Jesus didn't give those keys to Peter either.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 24, 2008 18:03:30 GMT -5
So are you claiming that when Jesus spoke to the "Church" in Philadelphia, the church age had already passed? I don't know anything about any "church age", but I know that when Jesus is passing judgement on someone or something, it is "after" their time on earth is over. What's "church age"? Sounds like a post 16th Century European Doctrine to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 24, 2008 18:07:54 GMT -5
Not the keys your talking about, and according to Revelation 3... Jesus didn't give those keys to Peter either. The only keys I was ever talking about was Matt 16. "That" is what we're talking about. I never made any claims of Rev 3 referenced Keys. Only Matt 16. We were always talking about Matt 16. You were the one who tried to introduce Rev into a Matt exchange. I never offered an opinion on Rev Key references. Again, the debate here is Matt 16. So...back on topic please. |
|
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 24, 2008 18:51:47 GMT -5
Not the keys your talking about, and according to Revelation 3... Jesus didn't give those keys to Peter either. The only keys I was ever talking about was Matt 16. "That" is what we're talking about. I never made any claims of Rev 3 referenced Keys. Only Matt 16. We were always talking about Matt 16. You were the one who tried to introduce Rev into a Matt exchange. I never offered an opinion on Rev Key references. Again, the debate here is Matt 16. So...back on topic please. Jesus said in Revelation 3... Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Now... Jesus said HE had the key of David, and NO MAN can open or shut what Jesus opens or shuts. The Key of David, is a reference to Isaiah 22... Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. This is the passage which Catholics claim is associated with Matthew 16:19 and Jesus giving Peter the "keys". Although I agree that the word "key" is used in each verse.... but my point is, why in Revelation 3 would Jesus tell the Church of Philadelphia that HE ONLY had the key, when this is apparently the "age" of the church... which is after the incident with Peter which occurred "before" the age of the church. As far as linear time is concerned, Peter should have had that key... had that been the key that Jesus gave Peter. I suggest that the keys Jesus gave Peter were completely different keys than that of the Key of the House of David. See my previous posts to find out what I believe the keys that Jesus gave Peter were.... the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 24, 2008 19:06:43 GMT -5
:DOh come on, if Peter wasn't the first Pope, you would not have placed so much study in attempting to prove that he never got The Keys. It wouldn't have mattered to you one bit. You would've loved Peter as much as you love Paul (I'm assuming you love Paul).
And why not?
It's the end times.
Peter's work is done.
I agree with you...Jesus got them back from Peter.
It's like when one has someone housesitting for them.
While their away, the housesitter has the keys.
Then, when the homeowner returns, he gets his keys back.
Yeah, I agree.
I'll accept the scripture "as" written.
Let's compare what you said to what scriptures says:
Gospel of JHardin: "Sounds to me like either Jesus never gave the keys to Peter, and we have just found a discrepancy in the Holy Scriptures."
Gospel of Matthew: "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."
Survey says?
Jesus' words truimph over JHardin's!
Jesus told Peter He'd give Him The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven and no scripture exists that says that He didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 24, 2008 19:09:35 GMT -5
What does that tell you about the man to whom Jesus said He was going to give the Keys of The Kingdom of Heaven to when He said this:
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."
As for your trying to separate the house of David from Jesus, remember...Jesus "is" The Son of David.
What does that make David's house?
Jesus' House too.
So Jesus would have this authority to give it to someone to "housesit" for Him on earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 24, 2008 20:29:11 GMT -5
By the way...what is the "church age"?
Is it a Biblical belief?
Or a post 16th Century European belief belonging to a sect or certain sects of Christianty?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 4, 2008 12:15:00 GMT -5
Watchman, with all love and respect, you are terribly misinformed! "Effect" is not the same as "Authority". If God gives someone authority, then no one can take it away. Jesus himself acknowledged that when He said to the disciples:
2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. (Matthew 23)
So even though this was hundreds of years after Moses, Jesus acknowledged that their authority was from the lineage of Moses and there was a "seat" of authority.
Also in the passage, which connects to what you pointed out about Paul correcting Peter's mistakes, is the fact that although the Pharisees were being hypocritical, that is not practicing what they preach, it did not take away their God-given authority!!!!!!!!
Ditto with the chair of Peter. It is instituted by Jesus, and the authority stands even if Peter is being a hypocrite (such as the example in the book of Galatians you mentioned.)
No one claims that the Peter's words are "divine" . No, but when the Holy Spirit speaks through someone, (as in the case of Peter's sermon on Pentecost Sunday) then in a sense they are divine. But many people (apparently you also) think that the Catholic teaching on infallibility means that we think everything the pope says is infallible. That is not true, and we have never taught that. Infallibility is only in very specific situations. The pope goes to confession for goodness sake, why would anyone say we teach that he is perfect? There's nothing to laugh at except our own misunderstandings. We certainly shouldn't laugh at the very words of Jesus. We can either believe His words or tell Him that He is a liar. If Jesus didn't really mean to give the Keys to Peter, then what about all the other stuff He said? "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son...." Or did He not really mean that either? We Catholics are just taking Jesus at His word and we're not apologizing for that.
Peace
Teresa
|
|
