Response to MT's post


#21

TG, have you not read a single word here?

You insist that your ego’s interpretation/twist of scripture is correct and millions of others are wrong. You accuse others of the exact thing which you are quite obviously doing!

How can anyone engage a person so utterly convinced of their correctness? You are here to “correct” rather than to learn. Overcome that flaw!

If you do not see your ego leading you astray, all interaction with you is simply wasted time.

Full story, bro’


#22

D-R “Matthew 16: [15] Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? [16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] 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. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Jesus said it, Himself. Are you saying that He was wrong in saying that it was the Father that revealed to Peter that He was the Christ? Certainly they might have all wondered about it at that point, but Peter came right out and stated it as a matter of fact.


#23

The “quandary” is entirely yours. Your beliefs are novel. They were not taught by Christ. They are not biblical.

LISTEN and begin to understand why.

I did 31 years ago and chose, out of conviction, to join the Catholic Church.

So did John Henry Cardinal Newman, Monsignor Ronald Knox, Dr. Francis Beckwith, Dr. William Marshner, Dr. Scott Hahn and these other notable Catholic converts.

John Wayne!

Sorry, TG, but I’m with John Wayne on this one.

However, it seems that you and your bible are much smarter than all of them put together.

Quandary, indeed.


#24

po18guy, greetings,

To call my point of view “novel,” is telling. But when you said, “listen and begin to understand why” I was waiting for a compelling argument. You went with the “credentials” approach. I’m not sure why.

So if I send you a list of “notables” from the protestant side, men who have mastered theology earning their Doctorate of Divinity, or their PHD in “I know more than you”, men who have written books and taught in Seminary, what will it all prove po18guy?

Your way to prove the “rightness” of your view is weak and unconvincing using this approach in my humble opinion.

Blessings to you sir.


#25

It should “tell” you something. Your unique beliefs are at most 501 years old, but Christ founded His Church 1985 years ago. How to explain that inexplicable gap? He did not teach bible alone. He did not write anything that is recorded. He did not teach the 12 to run to any written document at all. He taught that we are to listen to the Apostles (and their successors). He stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

You assert that those gates did indeed prevail, as you have rejected His Church and made the conscious decision to struggle along your own path. Quandary. Our worst imprisonment is that which we construct for ourselves.

I, for one, will not stand before Christ’s judgment seat and proudly state “I did it my way!”

Come, O Holy Spirit!


#26

Hello Telstar.

No, … I’m not. Peter was one of 11 disciples who eventually came to believe that Jesus was the Christ. He was not alone in this revelation, he may have been the first among his circle.

And, yes it was the Father who granted such a revelation which was the thrust of His point. And upon this “revelation” Christ will build His Church.

“and I say to you, thou art PETROS! and upon this PETRA I will build my Church…”

I agree with all that Peter experienced in this passage. But the disagreement is what others have “added to” the passage from personal bias. Such as, that Peter was singled out as a chief Shepherd to rule over the other apostolic shepherds and that he would be the only vicar of Christ here on the earth.

You have every right to believe this, but my point was simply to say that Mt. 16 doesn’t teach this narrow and specific “added-info.”

All the Disciples/Apostles (except Judas) were the foundational shepherds in their unique situation and they ruled the boundaries God gave them.

And the evidence that one was NOT to rule over the other is found two chapters later in chapters 18 where Jesus responded to a question. "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Jesus said, "… unless you become like humble children… " Mt. 23:11 says, “he that is greatest among YOU shall be your servant.”

To prove that Peter had a special position, exalted above the other apostles, would mean that scriptural witnesses would acknowledge, and agree to it. The biblical evidence proves only the opposite.

Blessings to you in all things.


#27

po18guy, … again, if I can find “millions” of people who see it my way, does that make me right? no it doesn’t. So why do you insist on appealing to one’s credentials alone? because I too can gather many for my view.

Does not the same holy Spirit live in us who lives in them? Does He not treat us in the same way that He treats them? Can we not learn like them? yes.

So if you are going to engage with me please do it with real substantive arguments, rather than platitudes of appeal by the so-called sway of millions of smart people.

I pray only the best of God’s blessings be yours,

p.s. I come on this site (not to teach) but to defend my misrepresented view from the majority here who slander it on practically every page. For this alone I, many times, get thrown off the site. I speak politely, I try not to make personal digs or impugn anyone’s intelligence or character. I don’t always succeed because I am a human as you are. But I will reason with, and ask questions to learn. Actually I have learned more about Catholicism on this site than any personal study.


#28

Your time, I think would be far better spent trying to get bible Christians on the same page.


#29

I have a feeling you can’t see that your objection is actually more evidence for St. Peter’s position.

Matthew 18:18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Why do you think the disciples asked Jesus this question? It’s because of Jesus’ favoritism and honor of St. Peter in the previous two chapters. I know you can’t see how evident it is so I will point it out…

God gives Peter the revelation that Jesus is the Christ.
Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter. Declaring him to be the Rock.
Jesus calls him Blessed.
Jesus gives him the keys to His kingdom.
Jesus gives him, on his own, the ability to bind and loose.
Jesus takes his inner circle (Peter, James and John), up the mountain for the Transfiguration.
AND THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BUT OFTEN OVERLOOKED…

Matthew 17:24 When they came to Caper′na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, “Does not your teacher pay the tax?” 25 He said, “Yes.” And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?” 26 And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.”

Jesus performed a miracle to pay the temple tax for both Him and St. Peter. Not for all of the Apostles just for the two of them. Read this in context. The collectors only asked for Jesus to pay the temple tax, which was a half shekel. Jesus could have very easily performed a miracle that paid the half shekel for himself or 6-1/2 shekels for all of them. But no He specifically chose to pay one shekel for Himself and St. Peter. This single payment for both of them relates back to Matthew 16:17-19 and underscores the spiritual union between Jesus and St. Peter (His vicar on earth).

Now read Chapter 18 it says At that time… What time would that be right after Jesus just paid the tax for Himself and St. Peter.

Can’t you see that this is the reason for the question? It’s Jealousy That’s why Jesus was telling them they need to be humble.

CONT…


#30

…cont

Actually based on the two verses you just sighted wouldn’t we expect the exact opposite in the Bible?

Wouldn’t the evidence for St. Peter being exalted above the other Apostles actually be subtle and not all in our face? After all wouldn’t we expect the Vicar of Christ to be humble in the Scriptures? Wouldn’t we expect the Vicar of Christ to serve the other Apostles and not always shown bossing them around and throwing his authority in their face?

You want to sight any objection you can come up with but you prove the point you are trying to object to. Jesus Chief Steward (St. Paul) would most likely be seen throughout scripture as a humble servant. For the Bible to portrait him as a bossy leader would be contrary to the Gospels.

You really need to start studying Scripture for what it truly is saying and not what others have convinced you it’s not.

God Bless


#31

BLESSINGS TO YOU MT.


#32

ALL OF THIS IS WONDERFUL. BUT NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SUGGESTION THAT PETER IS SINGLED OUT EXCLUSIVELY. PAUL WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO GOT KNOCKED OFF HIS HORSE AND WENT THROUGH SUCH DIFFICULTY BEFORE COMING TO THE POINT THAT HE SAW JESUS AS THE CHRIST. I WOULD NEVER MAKE ANY IMPOSED DECLARATION OF PAUL EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NONE IN THE ACTS ACCOUNT.

IT IS TRUE THERE WAS AN INNER CIRCLE OF DISCIPLES WHO DREW NEAR TO CHRIST, MORE THAN THE OTHERS. BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE OTHERS WERE EXCLUDED FROM THAT CIRCLE IF THEY WANTED IN.


#33

WOW all caps?

You sure these verses aren’t telling you something you are afraid to accept?

God Bless


#34

sorry about the all caps bro. I originally was speaking in between your lines and wanted to make a distinction, but then the site wouldn’t let me send. I forgot to turn off caps


#35

:thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking:

I responded to everything you said and you dismiss it with 4 words?

Are you serious?

Didn’t you just say…

You post your position over and over again, when we reply with the true meaning of the verse you just dismiss it?

Come on tg, you claim that you are here to defend your misrepresented view? How can we? We don’t even know what your view is, could you please point us to a website (like our Catechism) that teaches what your view is.

I think your statement here impugns our intelligence. :wink:

God Bless


#36

How can you defend? MT, No one on this site is in a defense mode. They are on an “offense” mode against any Christian view NOT Catholic.

If you want to know what my view is, just ask but be specific. I do argue from a defensive position and see how you may scratch your head saying 'what does this guy actually believe on this." Well… I can articulate specifics when given a specific question.

No one actually ask me any doctrinal questions. I am only lectured that I just need to “learn” the correct view and quit having an ego trip. If I get angry, I try to respond with silence to keep things civil, lest I go away for three weeks. I don’t always succeed. Actually I’ve gone away for three weeks without being angry or calling anyone a name. The site offers no explanation for this.


#37

tg with all love and respect look at your OP. You asked no questions about the previous thread.

You say…

If I said this to you would you not be on the defensive?

I give you an interpretation of scripture and you accuse me of adding to scripture.

I’ve tried my best to answer ever question you have asked me but you tend to ignore mine.

Once again…

I am pretty sure I have never said this to you, so how about not letting what others do to you keep cutting off the conversation we are having.


#38

I’m sorry this happens, maybe if we try to just stick to a direct question and answer format the likelihood of this happening will go away.

I try my best to interpret verses in context and give my reasoning for said interpretations. If you don’t agree then say you don’t agree. But to be honest I think the problem you are having here is you tend to tell us we are wrong and give no interpretive basis for why we are wrong, other than your opinion.

Let’s start over from square one.

Matthew 16:19
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[a] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I believe Jesus is saying “keys of the kingdom of heaven”.
I believe this is one thought.
I believe He is not just talking about “keys” here but “keys of the kingdom of heaven”
I believe these keys of Jesus kingdom are the same keys spoken of in…

Issiah 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

I believe this because in

Revelation 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

We see that Jesus is the holy one who has the key of David. The key that was placed on Eli′akim’s shoulder in Isiaih 22 and the key that was given to Peter in Matthew 16.

This is why I believe what I believe about the Keys of the Kingdom. Every verse I presented is, in context, referring to keys, kings and a kingdom.

Your turn.

What do you believe the “Keys of the Kingdom” are in Matthew 16?

If you want to stick with knowledge that’s fine, but then that leaves me asking why you believe a verse that only speaks of a key and does not make any reference to a king or a kingdom would relate to Matthew 16?

Thanks God Bless


#39

Okay I hear you. You are right and I apologies. I shouldn’t have said it that way. I’m sorry.
But I still stand on the content of what I said that you are adding information to it, not there. I will try to be more diplomatic about the way I come across. again, sorry.


#40

Okay… I think the way you put these scriptures together was accurate and I agree with you. One side note: the word KEY in Isaiah is in a singular form but nonetheless a reference to Christ.
Luke’s narrative where Christ said the Pharisees had the KEY of knowledge, only supports the idea that whether it is KEY or KEYS, it is a metaphor to explain the unlocking of doors, as stated in Isaiah 22. It is an expression.

I think we both can agree that it was an unlocking of kingdom authority to Peter. Well and good.

But our discussion must go beyond this. Was it an unlocking of authority exclusively to Peter, as mentioned earlier? If so, on what scriptural bases found in the immediate context? Peter was singled out, only because he was the only one, at the time, who answered correctly. Therefore Jesus directly rewarded him with His statement.

Peter could bind and loose, but so could the others. Can we find another N.T. witness who records or repeats these exact same particulars? No. There is no “upon the mouth of two or three…”

Peter answered the question correctly “who do you say I am?” and Jesus rewarded his answer with a declaration, You are Petros,=,masculine, (and/but) upon this Petra (=feminine gender) I will build MY CHURCH… the word “Petra” here cannot refer to a person (Peter or Christ) but to the declaration of Christ’ deity that Peter had just uttered.

So, verse 19 needs to read like this for your point to stand,

"And I will give you ALONE the keys of the kingdom of heaven… "
or… "I will give you (primarily) the keys of the kingdom… Or…
“I will give you only the keys of the kingdom…”

But Jesus made many statements about entering and possessing the kingdom of God not just to Peter, but to all of His disciples.

for instance. “to YOU (all of them) it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God but to the rest it is given in parables…” Luke 8:10.

“Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give YOU (all of them) the kingdom.” Luke 12:32

Was Peter the only one who could open this kingdom to everyone else? … that would be crazy. Peter was one man. If these keys were to open “kingdom knowledge” as what we see suggested in Luke’s narrative, then, they all were the direct recipients of Christ’s teaching, and therefore all obtained His understanding and authority when the Holy Spirit gave it.
“he opened their minds and they understood the scriptures…”

The special class of disciple found in Peter is not found in the narrative itself, only in traditions that came years later.

By His Grace,
tgGodsway


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.