Response to MT's post


#41

tg, since you reject the wisdom and reasoning of the greatest Christian minds in history, and actively choose to disregard the well-reasoned posts by “other” members, a question arises:

Why do you think that you are right?

On what basis?


#42

Po18guy, I make no claim to be right. When I stand before the Lord, He will determine just how right I am. I see through a glass dimley. But the opposite is true, I love to receive the wisdom and reason from some of the greatest minds in history. And through those men, the holy Spirit to teaches me as He has promised.


#43

MT. I am so glad the CC did not argue the Trinity doctrine with such cut and paste theology as this. Peter was given KEYS to the Kingdom. Agreed. These keys surely unlock all that the Kingdom has to offer. Please do a word study on the phrase Kingdom of God. You should conclude in the most simplest terms that the kingdom of God is God’s way of doing things. Peter, because of his newly found truth, was awarded to unlock that kingdom, as was the Pharisees who abused their opportunity. But you avoid the elephant in the room called exclusive. Peter was not alone in his assignment. The Kingdom of God.is already here. We do not wait for.the king to arrive.


#44

Awesome we are getting somewhere.

I’m not sure if you are agreeing with me or objecting?

I would say it was an unlocking of a PARTICULAR type of authority given exclusively to St. Peter. I would also add that Jesus didn’t “reward” him for answering the question correctly. The verse tells us that St. Peter was chosen by God to have this revelation. You add this revelation to the name change and there is a lot more meaning here than the “immediate context”. You need to read Jesus words in the context of the entire Bible or you lose its meaning.

I would also like to ask why would the understanding of this verse need to be based solely on the immediate context? Are we to expect the Bible to show us Jesus spelling out, to the Apostles, every single custom they were already familiar with? Are we to expect Jesus to say to them hey just in case that one was over your head I was referencing Isaiah 22? Which any Jew would have already known by heart.

I already explained that this is not the meaning of the keys of the kingdom. Yes the key holder can bind and loose but the fact that one can bind and loose doesn’t mean you hold the keys. Look up there :point_up:️ I already gave you a detailed explanation of Matthew 18.

Yes I remember this. We tried to discuss this once but you wouldn’t give me sound reasoning why I should believe this.

From my recollection you stated you only follow a teaching if it is recorded in 2 or 3 different places in the Bible by 2 or 3 other writers. If I’m misrepresenting, I apologize, please correct me.

If this is the way we are to perform interpretation of the Bible . Then please show me the basis for your theology? Could you post the 2 or 3 different writers who “record and repeat these exact same particulars”… that we only need to believe Jesus words when they are repeated in more than one of the Gospels?

Cont…


#45

Sorry, I disagree as does many Protestant scholars. The word rock in Greek is a feminine gender plain and simple. The thing you are forgetting is Jesus spoke Aramaic. So he said you are Cepha and on this Cepha. Aramaic doesn’t have genders for their words. The writer was writing in Greek he had no choice but to follow proper grammar. He couldn’t use Petra for Peters name bacause it would mean he was calling Peter a girl. So he had to make it masculine by changing it to Petros.

On a side note, the Catholic Church doesn’t argue that Jesus built His Church on St. Peter’s deceleration because in the end the deceleration still came from Peter’s mouth. You can’t separate them. It’s not either Peter or his deceleration, it’s both/and.

You are argueing against your own misunderstanding here. I never claimed the other Apostles don’t have any authority Please scroll up and read what I wrote about Matthew 18.


#46

Can I ask why? What didn’t you like about it? Where did I err? It seemed like pretty simple questions were they to confusing to answer? Basically, I was just trying to connect The OT King David with the NT King Jesus. Is this something that we aren’t suppose to do when reading the Bible?

This is an awesome statement. Would you be able to further explain to me what this means to you ?

I’m not sure of any authority Jesus gave to the Pharisees. Could you explain why you believe these are equal or how you are making this connection.

Nope didn’t avoid it. Look up there :point_up:️ Matthew 18. Already explained that Peter was not alone.

Yes totally agree. The kingdom of God is already here. It is present in and through the Church founded by Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

No we wait for Him to return. Thus the reason He left His Chief Steward in charge of His Church.

Great questions.

God Bless


#47

Then why did Jesus use the second person singular pronoun “you”.
We lose the singular verses plural in the English language, unless
Ya’ll live in the South.

But in the Greek, the pronoun “you”, was clearly singular.

Christ only started one Church.

Matthew 16:15-19
“He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are
you, (singular),
Simon Bar-Jona ! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you, (singular),
but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell
you, you (singular),
are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give
you ( in the Greek it is “you - singular”)
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ ”
RSV (emphasis added in parenthesis to clarify the Greek text.)

So, if you are going with Bible Alone, then where does the Bible explicitly state Jesus gave the keys to others ?

Are you not reading much more into the Bible then what you claim Catholics are doing ? Catholics have Old Testament to back up their understanding.
See Isaiah 22


#48

Also, consider

Luke 22:29-32
“ ‘… and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have
you (plural in Greek),
that he might sift
you (plural in Greek)
like wheat, but I have prayed for
you (singular in Greek)
that
your (singular in Greek)
faith may not fail; and when
you (singular in Greek)
have turned again, strengthen
your (singular in Greek)
brethren.’ ”
RSV (emphasis added in parenthesis to clarify the Greek text.)

.
The King James version retains the meaning of the original Greek where Satan had demanded to have “you -plural,” - meaning all of the disciples - but Christ says that He prayed for “you -singular” meaning Peter uniquely.

Luke 22:31-32
“And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have
you (plural,
that he may sift
you (plural)
as wheat: But I have prayed for
thee,
that
thy
faith fail not: and when
thou
art converted, strengthen
thy
brethren.”
KJV

Also, see John 21 AT
Peter’s role in the Church.
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/apostolic_succession.html#peter

Are you claiming that there is no hierarchy in the Church ?
… that no one has authority over others ?

Peace,
John


#49

To be fair! This can very much be the case both ways in NUMEROUS ways.

I know I gave up on some occasions thinking that exact same thing!


#50

This very phrase is such an interesting one. It CANNOT be claimed by a single group.

Not that you said this but it made me think. I utterly detest a saying relating to “If you understood this, you would believe it”. Well maybe I just don’t agree although I can understand it.

Anyway. Regards.


#51

God does have the authority to tell us we are wrong minded.
If we truly understood God and His ways, we would never sin.
The Beauty of the Good would always be obvious.

And if we understood everything all truth would be obvious to us.

We must humbly admit we do not know everything.

In comes Original Sin.
With the sin of Pride.

All of us sinners initially detest dying to ourselves and being told (by legitimate authority)
That we are wrong, or that we are not the end all and be all of all knowledge.

Humbly, we must admit we need a Teacher, God and His Catholic Church.

Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” ”

John


#52

Thanks for the link.

I really like the info on that side :+1:t2::+1:t2:

God Bless


#53

All you said their I agree totally with. You however ended with a part that very much brings us back to the purpose of my post. That is the point I am making.

Other than that we are in total agreement. :slight_smile:


#54

When Jesus made the statement about the keys, He was alluding to Isaiah 22:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/isaiah/22

16 “What have you here? Whom have you here, that you have hewn for yourself a tomb here,
Hewing a tomb on high, carving a resting place in the rock?”
17
The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly,
18
And roll you up and toss you like a ball into a broad land. There you will die, there with the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house!
19
I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.
20
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open.
23
I will fix him as a peg in a firm place, a seat of honor for his ancestral house;
24
On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
25
On that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg fixed in a firm place shall give way, break off and fall, and the weight that hung on it shall be done away with; for the LORD has spoken.


#55

Not really.

Look at John 21 (BibleHub):

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Three times Jesus uses terminology for Peter to feed/tend His sheep. Who does this? A shepherd. So the Lord - The Good Shepherd - is telling Peter to be the shepherd to His sheep before His Ascension. He didn’t ask this specifically of any of the other Apostles.

From the Scripture Catholic Website on the Primacy of Peter:


#56

To kainosktisis and MT,

I just got back in town and will eventually get to all of the comments and your perceived corrections. But let me tackle the issue of Peter from a more foundational angle.

In my view this whole doctrine about him, MT and kainosktisis, seems to hinge off of the Isaiah 22 passage you and others quote.

Just to sum up the chapter, it accuses Jerusalem of callous and unthinkable revelry. The verses in question (v22) seem to be set in a parentheses between chapters 21 and 23, and has its own special treatment. The Assyrian king had rampaged through Judah causing death and destruction everywhere and evidently many had died of famine in Jerusalem because of the evil king’s acts.

But instead of mourning and repentance the people of Jerusalem were only relieved that it was over, and so as a result they celebrated it like there was no tomorrow v13 says. This action (v14) invoked divine anger.

In addition, God made a comparison of Shebna to a ball, in verse 18, (Shebna was the previous key bearer) but matched it by his new successor, Eliakim (in verse 20) who was called a peg, or nail, in a wall; v23 These expressions were common poetic language for Isaiah.

The point was, Shebna would be swiftly uprooted and rolled up like a ball, while Eliakim would replace him and become firmly established in the same office with all of the weight and authority his predecessor relinquished and thus Eliakim would be like a peg, or a nail, in a firm place like a wall.

What you seem to say here by using this passage, MT, & kainosktisis is that Eliakim was awarded a position in King David’s house by the placement of a symbolic key resting on his shoulder. This authority would now include all the same duties and privileges Shebna the scribe previously had.

But Peter, centuries later, (and through the prophetic voice of Isaiah) would fulfill this prophecy as Eliakim did. So that Isaiah was actually describing, through his prophetic lens, what we know today as the office of Pope, who has the key of David resting on his shoulder as vicar of Christ, ready to open doors no man can open and close doors no man can close.


#57

continued:
Is this correct?

Again, because Eliakim was awarded the key to the house of David and all of the government would rest on his shoulders (v22) to open and no one could shut, and to shut and no one could open, the CC adopted Isaiah’s prophetic message here, and ascribed it to the position of overseeing Bishop, (Pope.) An interesting side note: The metaphor of a key upon a shoulder is actually rooted in pagan traditions. Isaiah and the Apostle John borrowed, it according to Clarke Adam’s Commentary.

Are these (above) conclusions correct here, so far, in your view?

If so, we still have an ever-so-slight problem here. The famous Isaiah 22:22 passage attributed to Peter, is actually pointing, not to a description of an office here on earth or a redeemed sinner such as Peter,… but to Christ Himself.

You must know, Isaiah’s prophetic word is echoed in Rev. 3:7 about Christ alone. “… He (Christ) who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.”

So which is it? Is Eliakim a type of position/person here on earth called to be the papacy, or Peter? Or is Eliakim a type or parallel figure of Christ Himself, a fulfillment of Rev. 3:7?

Before you answer that, let me add something else to the dilemma. Verse 25 suggest that even Eliakim will not be able to endure his role. “In that day, says the Lord of host, the peg (Eliakim) that was fastened into the “sure place” shall give way and be moved and be hewn down and fall, and the burden that was upon it (the peg) shall be cut off; for the Lord has spoken it.”

If you read verse 25 as part of the immediate context starting in v19, it shows where Eliakim would “fall and his burden would be cut off.” This speech can only be a reference to Christ alone who would be hewn down and finally cut off from His people, according to what Isaiah wrote in chapter 53 verse 8.

To further substantiate this point, the poetic language of the ball and peg or nail in the wall of (Isa.22) is understood as expressive imagery to show the divine strength of the nail, a point that the prophet Zechariah spoke of in Zech 10:4 where he unfolds a beautiful depiction of Christ at His second coming… (See this verse.)

The point here is that Christ’ role in Rev. 3:7 is not, and cannot, be shared with any person because Christ alone is worthy of it.

The CC created a problem (I believe) when they decided Peter’s position as Pope was to be a fulfillment of Eliakim’s new position in the house of David by the key of authority resting on his shoulder, again, a description that only Christ could fulfill based on Rev. 3:7…


#58

continued
The (CC) supposition is apparently based on these two scriptures working together in conjunction as a theological hypothesis. (Isaiah 22:22 and Mt. 16:18)

I believe, however, I am arguing these points strictly on the merits of its content and not any imposed idea. In Isaiah 22:22, Eliakim was given authority resting on his shoulder to open doors that no man could open, and to shut doors no man could shut. Jesus, in Mt. 16, does not follow through with the same language. Interestingly as I study this, I found that Jesus’s language compliments the Isaiah 22:22 passage but does not directly parallel it.

Peter is given the KEYS of the Kingdom of God but is NOT told he could “open doors that no man can open, or close doors that no man can close.

So to force the idea beyond the divine text, the CC came up with this thing called the vicar of Christ, meaning “substitution.” Peter, was now, supposedly, the Chief substituted-Shepherd over all other Shepherds here on earth, since Christ ascended to heaven. And Christ is now the Chief Shepherd in heaven over ALL Shepherds including Peter here on the earth. This special treatment meant that there are actually two heads of the Church, a concept rarely discussed in my experience on this site.

The whole thing is ludicrous…

I believe Eliakim served only as a TYPE of Christ, meaning that his role as one who held the key of the house of David on his shoulder was limited, as verse 25 suggested, but in a spiritual sense, Christ role, unlike Eliakim went beyond the grave. Nowhere in the Isaiah analogy do we find a duel ruler-ship.

Since we do not find it in scripture, where did this conflicting view come from? Certainly oral tradition cannot contradict inspired scripture. It is a quandary MT.
Be blessed!! in your coming in, and in your going out!


#59

I will respond to the other post when I can.


#60

First of all, that is not exactly what it says in Isaias. I don’t really want to nitpick, but the phraseology is always important in the Bible. It actually says what he opens no one shuts, and what he shuts, no one opens. It’s slightly different than the way you’ve paraphrased it. It was probably just a slip of the lip, so to speak.

“Isaias 22: [22] And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

“Matthew 16: [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.”

Anyway, the point is that the action of “opening & shutting” in Isaias has the equivalent meaning of what Jesus is saying about Peter “binding & loosing”. However, the keys that Jesus gives to Peter are the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which is Christ’s Kingdom. On earth, that Kingdom would be the Church that Jesus established through Peter and the Apostles. The keys that the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of David held were the actual keys to Jerusalem, which were also a symbol of his power over the entire Kingdom while the King was away from the city. While Jesus is “away” from His Kingdom (in Heaven, awaiting His second coming), Peter (or his successor) holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (His Church on earth). The Kingdom of Heaven is the Church that Jesus referred to as building on Peter. That’s why the Church refers to that passage in Isaias, because Eliacim is a “type” of Christ (which is why Jesus referenced it in Matthew), to explain what it means to be the holder of the keys in the absence of the King. He holds all the power of the King until he returns. The Church isn’t saying that the passage is only referring to Peter as being the Chief Steward.

The passage in Isaias is certainly a reference to Jesus, as the holder of the keys and as the peg. But, in Matthew He is saying that in His absence, Peter would hold His keys, and have all the power that the keys of the Chief Steward held in the absence of the King in his time. Sorry, but the point is that the King has the power to give the keys to whomever He chooses to hold them while He’s gone. Jesus chose Peter.


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.