Bible or Bible+Apostolic Oral Tradition MOOT

[MariaG]

jmgainor,

First off, I wish to thank you for posting the Early Church Fathers and the documents in which these quotes are found. It is frustrating to not read everything in context because context is very important to understanding things.

I, however, am amazed at what you choose to quote as proof. What you quoted says Peter was given the keys. And through him the church. The church would endure. Since the church would endure, so would the keys which were given to ONE man by Christ to be a visible head of the church. That authority and those keys have been passed down. The current one is was passed to is JPII.

… For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church,

While I can understand how you can read this and say look it says Peter and the church. Peter is not the head. The problem is church history does not support your view. Your view originally popped up around 1000years ago. I do thank you for your concern, but taken in totality, there can be only one church, it is not an invisible body of Christ that is the Church, but it is a visible church that has a structure as well as individuals who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That church is the Catholic Church even though through no fault of their own, there are believers in Christ who are not Catholic.
God Bless

 

[Michael_Howard]

Firstly, in my understanding the ‘keys’ express the meaning of authority and ultimately the power in Isaiah 22:15-25 (Cf. Matthew 23:13, Revelation 1:18, Revelation 3:7, Revelation 20:1).

The prophet is making a comparison between Shebna and Eliakim. Shebna’s office is to be taken from him, and Eliakim is to succeed him. I think that is pretty clear so far.

This *office *is symbolic of the keeper of the keys which grants its holders the given ability to ‘open’ and ‘shut’: ’Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open’ (Isaiah 22:22).

Next, we see that the keeper of the keys was one of the major roles for a household servant to fill(Cf. Mark 13:32-34). In the Davidic Kingdom, ‘the House of David,’ was established around the 11th century B.C. the first thirty-nine chapters of Isaiah were written around the 8th century B.C. Hence, the keys had been passed down in succession for approximately three centuries!

 

[jimmy]

jmgainor:

An utterly false statement. The Scriptures are clear that Jesus Himself is the Head of His Church. Nowhere do they say anything of the sort regarding Peter. If someone tells you that black is white, or that the moon is made of cheese, and you go on and believe it, that doesn’t make it true. The same with the above statement. A few of the Scriptures that are often mis-used in an attempt to promote the above claim are Matthew 16.18, and John 21.15-22. But when the passages are thoroughly looked into, they neither say or imply anything of the sort.

Jesus is who the church is built to preach about. Peter is the head of the church on earth. When Jesus says “Simon you are kepha and on this Kepha I shall build my church” he is making him the head of his church. That statement is quite clear.

 

[Michael_Howard]

Part II…

And we know that the descendants of the house of Judah include King David ( Genesis 49:10, Micah 5:2), and his lineage which included King Hezekiah ( Isaiah 22) and the Jesus Christ (Matthew 1). In Isaiah 22, Shebna acted as overseer for King Hezekiah just as Joseph did for the Pharaoh over his house in (Genesis 41)

***Isaiah the prophet also records that Shebna shall be ‘hurled out’ and ‘cast into a vast country to die’, and he shall be ‘deposed from his office’ and be ‘pulled down from his station’ (Cf. Isaiah 22:17-19). ***

Now if Eliakim was to be the prototype of St.Peter, should’nt there be a parallel of Shebna in the New Testament as well, don’t ya think?

But there is a rather remarkable parallel between Shebna and the Scribes and Pharisees, in particular, the High Priest of the Sanhedrin:

***‘The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from men.’(Matthew 23:2-3,13). ***

****** Yet, we see that Jesus Christ commands his followers to obey the ‘seat of Moses’ and He ultimately recognizes the authority that they have been given by using Old Testament rabbinical language such as the power to ‘shut off.’

Yet, until the New Covenant had been established by Christ’s death on the cross, the power of the keys still rested with the scribes and pharisees. But after the redemption, however, the High Priest’s authority (Shebna) is given to Peter (Eliakim) who receives the power of the keys from Jesus (King Hezekiah).

In the book of Matthew, Christ is the master of the house, and holds the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Old Covenant. God places the keys of the House of David on Eliakim’s shoulders with authority and stewardship over that house. In the New Testament.

Christ does the same with Peter: He grants him the authority to administer the house of God, His Church, until His return. ***This is not to say that the keys now belong to ****Peter (*Prots usually do not understand this) Christ still holds the keys for He is God and theMaster always holds the ultimate authority over his House, but holding authority certainly does not preclude the Him from delegating the keys as he wishes.

So, Peter’s successors were to carry the responsibilities and authority of the keys throughout the duration of the Church until Jesus Christ returns just as Ahishar, the first recorded palace administrator (Cf. 1 Kings 4:6) who is given the identical title as Eliakim, had successors flowing through the history of Israel
Blessings

 

[pnewton]

jmgainor:

Maria,

It really is quite simple. The keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the Church—that is, to all who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Maria asked an insightful question and you had to leave the path of sola scriputura to answer it. Jesus gave the keys in Peter alone (it is in the Bible). Do you remember that Jesus blessed Simon bar-Jonah and blessed him with a new name?

Then when he made his key statement (non pun intended), he used a singular, 2nd person pronoun. There were other disciples present and Jesus used a plural pronoun later. The sentence grammatical has the keys given to Simon Peter alone. Do you also believe we should all go by the name Peter?

To expand what Jesus did with Peter and apply to others is extra-biblical.

Did you just post here to advertise your website?

 

[newby]

I get so tired of mis-quoting scripture to make the Protestant ideas correct…2Tim3:15ff says that, “scripture is capable of giving you wisdom for salvation” not that is the ONLY thing that can give you wisdom for salvation. Continuing on in V16, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness”, again not the only things that are inspired by God and is useful for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness!! Hope you learn to understand scripture…yours is a problem when you interpret it yourself and don’t have someone to have an athorative source to interpret scripture like the Catholic Church does as given by Jesus!

God Bless you,

Newby

LetsObeyChrist:

Indeed, the Bible is quite clear it contains all necessary to the faith, 2 Tim 3:15ff.

 

[Michael_Howard]

newby:

I get so tired of mis-quoting scripture to make the Protestant ideas correct…2Tim3:15ff says that, “scripture is capable of giving you wisdom for salvation” not that is the ONLY thing that can give you wisdom for salvation. Continuing on in V16, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness”, again not the only things that are inspired by God and is useful for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness!! Hope you learn to understand scripture…yours is a problem when you interpret it yourself and don’t have someone to have an athorative source to interpret scripture like the Catholic Church does as given by Jesus!

God Bless you,

Newby

Yup…good carvings here newby, I give you a hardy AMEN!
Mary concieved without sin pray for us

 

[jmgainor]

SteveG:

Hopefully this is ‘on topic’ enough for you, but since you linked a study of MT 16:18 from your site (which I did read), I’ll simply link a study from www.catholic.com (the parent site of these forums) which clearly refutes your understanding…
Peter the Rock
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

Peter the Rock in the early fathers
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
…This article in particular directly refutes your attempt to use the early fathers to bolster your argument. Your argument from silence is shown to be false, and some of the writers you choose to use are shown in fuller context as being in full agreement about who the rock was (Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian specifically).

I challenge anyone on this thread to read his link, then read the two Catholic answers links and see who has the better evidence and argument.

Steve, regarding your first link: I am aware of the claims made there, and anticipated them when I put together the Papacy Uncovered website. Rather than load up the thread with the material, I will post the link to the specific page that refutes your material.

Hebrew of Matthew

Read especially the two sublinks in the petros/petra, kepa/shua section.

Regarding your second link: I have seen that papists have a propensity for selectively quoting passages out of context, and for quoting dis-reputable (fraudulent) material. I will address a few of your quotes:

Tatian The Diatessaron was a harmony of the Gospels that was in use among the Syriac churches in the early centuries. It was replaced by the Peshitta in the late 4th/early 5th century. To quote this passage from it means virtually nothing, as most/all of the Gospels were contained in it. It is but a disingenuous attempt to give an appearance of antiquity to the papacy, which it does not have in truth.

Tertullian These are but selective quotes, and say nothing that supports a papacy. Tertullian is the first on record that makes a Peter = rock connection, in the early third century. But he was no papist, and had no views of a primacy for Rome, as other quotes from him make clear. Some of them are found here.

Clement Both of your ‘Clement’ quotes are phony. They are found in the Pseudo-Clementine literature here.

(continued…)

 

[jmgainor]

Origen Another selective quote that says nothing for or about a papacy, or Rome. What do you think of this quote of Origen:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
Origin’s Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, Book XII, § 11

Cyprian More selective quotes. How about these to balance them out:

1. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles;… and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem…
2. But with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth … And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen (bishop of Rome), that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles…
   Epistle LXXIV, §§ 6, 19

I don’t have the time to go on and on addressing your ‘sources’. Frankly, it is shameful for people to misrepresent history in this way, and deliberately lead people astray with fraudulent and falsified references. These early Christians are made to have the appearance that they were papists, when they were nothing of the sort. They held the Roman bishop in no greater eminence than any other—unless, perhaps, due to the eminence of his city. It is truly sad to see the blind being led into the ditch by these means.

 

[jmgainor]

Catholic4aReasn:

The wording and title of this passage are a little different than what I have:

C4aR,

The reason yours reads differently is because you are quoting from an interpolated falsified edition.If you go to my post #40, and follow the link, it will take you to the better edition, where the footnotes will show where the passage has been interpolated over time. It’s no wonder you believe as you do if you think those early Christians held such views. It is sad that people mislead others in such ways in something as important as the faith of Christ.

 

[jmgainor]

Catholic4aReasn:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgainor
Quote:
In Book XIII of this treatise, Origin argues for some greater eminence for Peter; but nothing like a papacy.
How does Origin’s opinion on the primacy of Peter differ from the papacy?

Origen never said anything about primacy. See also #69 above.

 

[jmgainor]

MariaG:

jmgainor,

First off, I wish to thank you for posting the Early Church Fathers and the documents in which these quotes are found. It is frustrating to not read everything in context because context is very important to understanding things.

I, however, am amazed at what you choose to quote as proof. What you quoted says Peter was given the keys. And through him the church. The church would endure. Since the church would endure, so would the keys which were given to ONE man by Christ to be a visible head of the church. That authority and those keys have been passed down. The current one is was passed to is JPII.

… For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church,

While I can understand how you can read this and say look it says Peter and the church. Peter is not the head. The problem is church history does not support your view. Your view originally popped up around 1000years ago. I do thank you for your concern, but taken in totality, there can be only one church, it is not an invisible body of Christ that is the Church, but it is a visible church that has a structure as well as individuals who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. That church is the Catholic Church even though through no fault of their own, there are believers in Christ who are not Catholic.
God Bless

Maria, I hope you will continue to seek and search and study and grow in your faith. Always remember that truth matters; and liars are not to be followed. Blessings in Christ.

 

[Philthy]

Wow - some heated words and unheeded words - let’s all try and let the adrenaline levels normalize before we continue. I wanted to respond to LetsObeyChrist’s original comments, but before I do I just wanted to let him/her know that you need to be a little more careful in your grammar when you post. I’m not saying this to be petty - it is a requirement for meaningful written theological dialogue. For example from your original post:
"Empirical evidence proves it is impossible literate human beings not put in written form any oral “divine teaching” they possess." This is not even a sentence! I honestly don’t know what you are trying to say. I think you’re trying to say “Empirical evidence proves that it is impossible **for literate human beings not to put into **written form any oral “divine teaching” they possess” Am I correct? This seems like and odd “conclusion”. How could this ever be proven with absolute certainty? You would have to have full knowledge of all divine revelation during the reign of literacy and all that has been written claiming to be so - no? I would agree with you that the evidence suggests it, but it hardly proves it. And again:
**“Therefore it is special pleading to argue that is precisely what the RCC has done with sayings from the very lips of Christ and His apostles.” **I don’t know what “special pleading” means and, again, this is not a complete sentence - is there a ‘this’ missing after the word “that”?

I’m not trying to be picky - honest. It’s just that how can you expect someone to take the time and energy to respond to your post if there’s the chance that they’re not even understanding what you intended to say? I ran over the limit on my post so the main body of my intended reply follows…

 

[Philthy]

Again to respond to LetsObeyChrist…

Now to a statement that left no doubt as to it’s intended meaning:

**“Indeed, the Bible is quite clear it contains all necessary to the faith, 2 Tim 3:15ff.” **You had to know that you were going to take some hits here! You can’t just say “it’s clear”. If it were clear then no one would ever debate it! Stop for a second and consider how many great minds with a genuine heart for Jesus have wrestled with Christan theology over the past 2000 years. Do you really think anyone in this Forum could stand shoulder to shoulder with them? And before we even look at the verse and see how “clear” it is, you must first recognize that this statement refers to the OT only - No? Literally taken, it doesn’t project into the future and say that whatever becomes Scripture 100 years from now will also always contain “all that is necessary for faith”.

So what does the verse say?

“…the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”(NIV) If I asked you at this point," So what does it say is necessary for salvation?" What would your response be? If you say anything other than “faith in Jesus Christ” then you have overstepped what the verse explicitly says. It does say that Scripture (OT) can make you wise for salvation through faith, **but it doesn’t say that it (OT Scripture) is even necessary. **Is this clear?Now to go backwards and a bit tangentially from this point we could back up to 1 Tim 3:14-15 where Paul writes to Timothy:
“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing these instructions so that, If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of Truth.”

Now I suppose that it should be pointed out here that Paul refers to the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth - not Scripture. Well I have to admit that I don’t know Greek and am unaware whether Paul is referring to “the Living God” as the “foundation and pillar” or if he’s referring to “the Church…” as the foundation and pillar, but I’ve never heard anyone contend the former. But something more important is contained pertaining to our discussion. Paul is writing to Timothy so that he will know how people are to behave in the Church of the Living God - he obviously feels Timothy is lacking in this respect. In Pauls second letter to Timothy, in the very verse you quoted (2Tim 3-15) Paul says,"…from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise…" and continues with the verse already discussed.
The logical syllogism that follows is:

1. Paul knows that Timothy knows holy Scripture

2. Paul, with this knowledge, feels compelled to write Timothy to instruct him on how people are to “conduct themselves” in the Church.

Conclusion: Paul does not believe that a knowledge of Scripture alone is insufficient for instruction of conduct in the Church.
I’ll stop for now. I hope some of this makes sense…

I confess that Jesus is Lord and I believe in my heart that God

raised Him from the dead.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Originally Posted by Catholic4aReasn
*The wording and title of this passage are a little different than what I have:
*

jmgainor:

The reason yours reads differently is because you are quoting from an interpolated falsified edition.If you go to my post #40, and follow the link, it will take you to the better edition, where the footnotes will show where the passage has been interpolated over time.

I checked the footnotes but didn’t find the place where it indicates that it had been altered. Help me understand how your edition is “better”.

It’s no wonder you believe as you do if you think those early Christians held such views. It is sad that people mislead others in such ways in something as important as the faith of Christ./

Who do you believe is misleading me? What would be their motive?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

jmgainor:

Always remember that truth matters; and liars are not to be followed.

 

[TobyLue]

This is off the subject but just to give you an insight on JMGainor, which you may already have. Look at these sites.

On the assassination of Pres Lincoln. http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/MDPC/LA/LA.htm

On Croatian Holocaust

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/MDPC/CH/CH.htm

On the inquisition
http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Inq/Inq.htm

And then there is this on Final Crusade Thoughts http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Cru/fincrth.htm

And I will cut and paste from jmgainor’s own Crusade link site:
“While there have been other, smaller excursions that have been called crusades, these here presented constitute the main parcel of the crusade heritage bequeathed, by the ‘vicars’ of the Prince of Peace, on the children of Roman ‘catholicism’*. *And each priest and nun and teacher and parent, who teach those children the *lie *that says “Jesus made Peter the first pope, and the Holy Spirit has always guided the Church through the popes”, deliver those children into mental, emotional, and spiritual slavery to the demons of reality that lurk in the shadows.” (Emphasis mine).
As you can see from these links they are all “Hate Catholic” sites. It seems from other forums that I have run into that this gentleman, Mr. Gainor, really has nothing but hatred for the Catholic Church and the Holy Father and trying to debate with him will be fruitless and frustrating. I can only pray for him and ask him;
Mr. Gainor, why is there so much hatred in your heart? But then maybe that question should be on a separate thread. Would someone like to start it?

 

[Philthy]

Again to respond to LetsObeyChrist…

Now to a statement that left no doubt as to it’s intended meaning:

**“Indeed, the Bible is quite clear it contains all necessary to the faith, 2 Tim 3:15ff.” **You had to know that you were going to take some hits here! You can’t just say “it’s clear”. If it were clear then no one would ever debate it! Stop for a second and consider how many great minds with a genuine heart for Jesus have wrestled with Christan theology over the past 2000 years. Do you really think anyone in this Forum could stand shoulder to shoulder with them? And before we even look at the verse and see how “clear” it is, you must first recognize that this statement refers to the OT only - No? Literally taken, it doesn’t project into the future and say that whatever becomes Scripture 100 years from now will also always contain “all that is necessary for faith”.

So what does the verse say?

“…the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”(NIV) If I asked you at this point," So what does it say is necessary for salvation?" What would your response be? If you say anything other than “faith in Jesus Christ” then you have overstepped what the verse explicitly says. It does say that Scripture (OT) can make you wise for salvation through faith, **but it doesn’t say that it (OT Scripture) is even necessary. **Is this clear?Now to go backwards and a bit tangentially from this point we could back up to 1 Tim 3:14-15 where Paul writes to Timothy:
“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing these instructions so that, If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of Truth.”

Now I suppose that it should be pointed out here that Paul refers to the Church as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth - not Scripture. Well I have to admit that I don’t know Greek and am unaware whether Paul is referring to “the Living God” as the “foundation and pillar” or if he’s referring to “the Church…” as the foundation and pillar, but I’ve never heard anyone contend the former. But something more important is contained pertaining to our discussion. Paul is writing to Timothy so that he will know how people are to behave in the Church of the Living God - he obviously feels Timothy is lacking in this respect. In Pauls second letter to Timothy, in the very verse you quoted (2Tim 3-15) Paul says,"…from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise…" and continues with the verse already discussed.
The logical syllogism that follows is:

1. Paul knows that Timothy knows holy Scripture

2. Paul, with this knowledge, feels compelled to write Timothy to instruct him on how people are to “conduct themselves” in the Church.

Conclusion: Paul does not believe that a knowledge of Scripture alone is insufficient for instruction of conduct in the Church.
I’ll stop for now. I hope some of this makes sense…

I confess that Jesus is Lord and I believe in my heart that God

raised Him from the dead.

 

[kwitz]

I only read the first line or two of the Lincoln assassination site and couldn’t stop laughing at the concept of the south being totally linked to “popery”. That’s a new one for me. Thanks TobyLue for the info - it explains a lot.

Kris

 

[Philthy]

What a loser I am! After giving LetsObeyChrist the 3rd degree on grammar I went and messed up myself…

My last post should have gone like this:

The logical syllogism that follows is:

1. Paul knows that Timothy knows holy Scripture

2. Paul, with this knowledge, feels compelled to write Timothy to instruct him on how people are to “conduct themselves” in the Church.

Conclusion: Paul does not believe that a knowledge of Scripture alone is sufficient for instruction of conduct in the Church.
I’ll stop for now. I hope some of this makes sense…

I confess that Jesus is Lord and I believe in my heart that God

raised Him from the dead. Am I done?