God wrote the Bible not the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sixtus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That much is pretty obvious Lord said ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are favoured indeed, this did not come from mortal man but by my heavenly Father’ Mt 16 18

This is an astonishing interpretation of the Lord speaking in the singular interpreted as Him speaking in the plural!

Disseminate it: 'You are Peter…I will give you the keys…what you forbid…what you allow…

The Lord could have said: You are Peter but I confer the keys on all of you’. He could equally have said ‘You are all Peter’s and I confer the keys on all of you’. But He did not say that so it is pointless pretending He did. That is just wild speculation that is unscriptural.

Listen to her whose Scriptures they are, how it is written it is written 🙂
“upon this rock” refers to the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus told the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Son of God. The Father would have to reveal it to them. If anyone believes and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, they received the key.
 
What my question is in this subject… Did Jesus mean for Peter to ‘pass down the keys’? Just a thought that popped into my head whenever I hear people talking about this…
That’s a good question. There is some support for this in the Bible. Look at Acts 1:15-26 where Matthias was chosen to take Judas’ place of apostolic ministry. From these verses, there is an idea of an office which must be filled upon one’s death (apostolic succession). If there was a successor to Judas, there would be one for Peter as well.

Outside the Bible, we have historical evidence for apostolic succession of Peter’s office from the ECF’s:

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. **The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the **present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Augustine–Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

**“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was **chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. … **To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded **. . . and now, **in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the **episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Irenaeus–Against Heresies, 3, 3:3 [A.D. 189]).
 
believers said:
if anyone believes and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, they received the key.
Where in Scriptures does it say that?

My Working Bible is the New English [standard edition approved by the Mainstream Protestant Church of Gt Britain]. .

No where in my edition does it say that 😛

It is quite emphatic in fact: it says that Christ speaks in the singular addressed to Peter ‘TO YOU’ ‘not to all of you’ nor’ to most of you’ nor ‘to some of you’ but in the singular ‘TO YOU’ Peter to you’!
 
believers said:

Where in Scriptures does it say that?

My Working Bible is the New English [standard edition approved by the Mainstream Protestant Church of Gt Britain]. .

No where in my edition does it say that 😛

It is quite emphatic in fact: it says that Christ speaks in the singular addressed to Peter ‘TO YOU’ ‘not to all of you’ nor’ to most of you’ nor ‘to some of you’ but in the singular ‘TO YOU’ Peter to you’!
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Remember the thief on the cross? He believed and confessed that Jesus is Lord. He received the key to Heaven that day. Peter had nothing to do with it.
 
In regards to “thee” in Mat 16:19

Mat 16:17
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.

Mat 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my church; (Jesus mentions His church for the first time here)
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19
And I will give unto **thee **(http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs163.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs165.gif)
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.

I maintain that Jesus was referring to His Church which were the 12 disciples at that very moment. Let’s look at Revelation 2:20 where “thee”, the same word in the Greek in Mat 16:19, is referring to the church.

Rev 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;

Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against **thee **(http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs163.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs165.gif), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

It is quite possible that Jesus was referring to them collectively as a church. In which case “thee” would be referring to all of them as the church just as “thee” in Revelation 2:20 refers to the church.
 
Rev 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;


Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against **thee **(http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs163.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs165.gif), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Rev 2:18:
"And to the angel of the church in Thyati’ra write The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze. Rev 2:19 "I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.

Be honest and include ALL of the quote. Don’t cherry-pick the things that will boost your argument. I bet I could find one word from each book of Revelations and spell out that ‘Believers is the Devil’, right?

Its been stated before that Jesus was speaking to the ANGEL of the church, again a single entity, hence the usage of the same Greek word.

Stay consistent in your scripture usage.
 
What my question is in this subject… Did Jesus mean for Peter to ‘pass down the keys’? Just a thought that popped into my head whenever I hear people talking about this…
Yes. Jesus is quoting directly from Isaiah 22:22, and when you turn to that passage, you find detailed instructions about the passing down of the keys to the House of David. (One of Jesus’ titles is the Son of David.)
 
What my question is… Did Jesus mean for Peter to ‘pass down the keys’?
Each person ordained was to choose worthy men to succeed himself. “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim 2:1-3. The faith was handed from one bishop to another, the bishop of Rome being the centering point. The authority belonged to the Apostles: " I have written something to the church; but Diot’rephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority."3 John 9

From the Early Church Fathers:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). Clement of Rome

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs 4:22:1 [ca. A.D. 180]). Hegesippus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about…Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]). Irenaeus

“For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the apostles handed over the churches, and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in devious paths, and on this account the vestiges of their doctrines are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of those, however, who belong to the Church goes around the whole world, for it has the firm tradition of the apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same” (Irenaeus Ibid. 5:20:1).

“Polycarp was instructed not only by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth, for he tarried a long time and when quite old departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he learned from the apostles and which the Church had handed down and which are true. To these things the churches in Asia bear witness, as do also the successors of Polycarp even to the present time” (Irenaeus Ibid. 3:3:4).

“It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles, those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession [of bishops] and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion…The true gnosis [knowledge] is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” ( Irenaeus Ibid. 4:26:2, 33:8).

“But what is his error and how great his blindness…who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, …’ The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place” ( Firmilian Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).
 
It’s really very simple… Peter was the first to receive the revelation from the Father that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That was the Gospel to the Jews and Peter was the first to receive this key. This same revelation was also given by the Father to the rest of the disciples. It’s the belief in the heart and the confession that is the key. All believing Jews must possess this key.
I think you are mistaken on this point, believers. I agree that Peter was the first to recieve the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. Or else just the first to make that confession so boldly. However, the keys are not related to that. What was related to that is Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built. Now, before you jump on that, let me say that Jesus is also a rock (the cornerstone) and so is the statement that Peter made.
 
Originally Posted by Sixtus
believers said:
if anyone believes and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, they received the key.
Sixtus said:
Where in Scriptures does it say that?
My Working Bible is the New English [standard edition approved by the Mainstream Protestant Church of Gt Britain]. .
No where in my edition does it say that
It is quite emphatic in fact: it says that Christ speaks in the singular addressed to Peter ‘TO YOU’ ‘not to all of you’ nor’ to most of you’ nor ‘to some of you’ but in the singular ‘TO YOU’ Peter to you’!
believers said in reply:
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Remember the thief on the cross? He believed and confessed that Jesus is Lord. He received the key to Heaven that day. Peter had nothing to do with it.
There is absolutely no scriptural foundation for the words used. That is mere fanciful linguistics.

It is obvious that Peter had nothing to do with Christ granting Paradise to the penitent thief. This is a hyperbolic use of word- play to distract the reader from the central precepts of the argument and has no relevance to the topic being discussed.

It further plays on linguistic status to emphasise the power relationship between Christ and Peter. It is obvious that Christ did not need Peter in order to work miracles or grant favours. There is absolutely no valid reason why linguistic status is used here. It is an attempt to hijack the discussion: what journalise calls ‘pursuasion’ to lead the reader astray!
believers said:
Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee (), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, It is quite possible that Jesus was referring to them collectively as a church. In which case “thee” would be referring to all of them as the church just as “thee” in Revelation 2:20 refers to the church.
Your references to ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ are asymmetrical forms of address. Again a play on words which has no relevance to the central tenet of my argument that Christ addressed Peter in the singular when He gave him the keys to the kingdom’! Attempting to use scripture to define scripture [ie pitching the language of one book against that of another] is an ill fated attempt to undermine Scripture and is not how scripture is intended to be used and on that basis is an abuse of scripture.

It is quite possible that Jesus was referring to them collectively as a church. In fact this is exactly what the text says so ‘it is quite possible’ is not relevant. The reference is not to ‘the Church’ but ‘all the churches’. Rev 2:23. Again the use of archaic and redundant English is a distraction to fuel fanciful speculation about what Christ may Have meant but in fact did not mean seeings we are not interpreting the original Greek or Hebrew but archaic and redundant English. The Modern Bible do not use archaic English.

I am sorry believers [however many of you there are], but the English in use, does not support your collective hypotheses. The evidence still supports Christ speeking to Peter in the singular.🙂
 
Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
believers said:
if anyone believes and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, they received the key.
Sixtus said:
Where in Scriptures does it say that?
My Working Bible is the New English [standard edition approved by the Mainstream Protestant Church of Gt Britain]. .
No where in my edition does it say that
It is quite emphatic in fact: it says that Christ speaks in the singular addressed to Peter ‘TO YOU’ ‘not to all of you’ nor’ to most of you’ nor ‘to some of you’ but in the singular ‘TO YOU’ Peter to you’!
Quote:believers said in reply:
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Remember the thief on the cross? He believed and confessed that Jesus is Lord. **He received the key **to Heaven that day. Peter had nothing to do with it.
There is absolutely no scriptural foundation for the words used. That is mere fanciful linguistics.

It is obvious that Peter had nothing to do with Christ granting Paradise to the penitent thief. This is a hyperbolic use of word- play to distract the reader from the central precepts of the argument and has no relevance to the topic being discussed.

It further plays on linguistic status to emphasise the power relationship between Christ and Peter. It is obvious that Christ did not need Peter in order to work miracles or grant favours. There is absolutely no valid reason why linguistic status is used here. It is an attempt to hijack the discussion: what journalise calls ‘pursuasion’ to lead the reader astray!
Quote:believers said:
Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee… It is quite possible that Jesus was referring to them collectively as a church. In which case “thee” would be referring to all of them as the church just as “thee” in Revelation 2:20 refers to the church.
Your references to ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ are asymmetrical forms of address. Again a play on words which has no relevance to the central tenet of my argument that Christ addressed Peter in the singular when He gave him the keys to the kingdom’! Attempting to use scripture to define scripture [ie pitching the language of one book against that of another] is an ill fated attempt to undermine Scripture and is not how scripture is intended to be used and on that basis is an abuse of scripture.

believers said:
It is quite possible that Jesus was referring to them collectively as a church.
In fact this is exactly what the text says so ‘it is quite possible’ is not relevant. The reference is not to ‘the Church’ but ‘all the churches’. Rev 2:23. Again the use of archaic and redundant English is a distraction to fuel fanciful speculation about what Christ may Have meant but in fact did not mean seeings we are not interpreting the original Greek or Hebrew but archaic and redundant English. The Modern Bible do not use archaic English.

When Christ gave that command, there were not in existence Churches plural.So it fanciful word-play and absurd speculation based on a wishful imagination.

Sorry believers [however many of you there are], but the English in use, does not support your collective hypotheses. The evidence still supports Christ speaking to Peter in the singular. 🙂
 
Originally Posted by Singinbeauty
What my question is in this subject… Did Jesus mean for Peter to ‘pass down the keys’? Just a thought that popped into my head whenever I hear people talking about this…
Jimcrae replied:
Yes. Jesus is quoting directly from Isaiah 22:22, and when you turn to that passage, you find detailed instructions about the passing down of the keys to the House of David. (One of Jesus’ titles is the Son of David.)
AMEN 👍
 
Rev 2:18:
"And to the angel of the church in Thyati’ra write The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze. Rev 2:19 "I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.

Be honest and include ALL of the quote. Don’t cherry-pick the things that will boost your argument. I bet I could find one word from each book of Revelations and spell out that ‘Believers is the Devil’, right?

Its been stated before that Jesus was speaking to the ANGEL of the church, again a single entity, hence the usage of the same Greek word.

Stay consistent in your scripture usage.
Keep it in context. No one is cherry picking. God does not have anything against the angel of the church at Thyatira. The angel is to pass this information UNTO the church. The Son of God has something against the church.

Rev 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith UNTO the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee (The Church at Thyatira… not the angel), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

The church allowed this to happen.
 
There is absolutely no scriptural foundation for the words used. That is mere fanciful linguistics.

It is obvious that Peter had nothing to do with Christ granting Paradise to the penitent thief. This is a hyperbolic use of word- play to distract the reader from the central precepts of the argument and has no relevance to the topic being discussed.

It further plays on linguistic status to emphasise the power relationship between Christ and Peter. It is obvious that Christ did not need Peter in order to work miracles or grant favours. There is absolutely no valid reason why linguistic status is used here. It is an attempt to hijack the discussion: what journalise calls ‘pursuasion’ to lead the reader astray!

Your references to ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ are asymmetrical forms of address. Again a play on words which has no relevance to the central tenet of my argument that Christ addressed Peter in the singular when He gave him the keys to the kingdom’! Attempting to use scripture to define scripture [ie pitching the language of one book against that of another] is an ill fated attempt to undermine Scripture and is not how scripture is intended to be used and on that basis is an abuse of scripture.

believers said:

In fact this is exactly what the text says so ‘it is quite possible’ is not relevant. The reference is not to ‘the Church’ but ‘all the churches’. Rev 2:23. Again the use of archaic and redundant English is a distraction to fuel fanciful speculation about what Christ may Have meant but in fact did not mean seeings we are not interpreting the original Greek or Hebrew but archaic and redundant English. The Modern Bible do not use archaic English.

When Christ gave that command, there were not in existence Churches plural.So it fanciful word-play and absurd speculation based on a wishful imagination.

Sorry believers [however many of you there are], but the English in use, does not support your collective hypotheses. The evidence still supports Christ speaking to Peter in the singular. 🙂

The Greek supports my argument and that is the language the Holy Spirit chose to write the New Testament.
 
Keep it in context. No one is cherry picking. God does not have anything against the angel of the church at Thyatira. The angel is to pass this information UNTO the church. The Son of God has something against the church.

Rev 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith UNTO the churches… not the a; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee (The Church at Thyatira… not the angel), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

The church allowed this to happen.
I am confused. Are you taking pot shots at the church? I don’t understand what this has to do with "God wrote the Bible, Not the Catholic Church.🤷
 
I am confused. Are you taking pot shots at the church? I don’t understand what this has to do with "God wrote the Bible, Not the Catholic Church.🤷
Are you kidding? The OP is a pot shot at the protestants.
 
Keep it in context. No one is cherry picking. God does not have anything against the angel of the church at Thyatira. The angel is to pass this information UNTO the church. The Son of God has something against the church.

Rev 2:11
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith UNTO the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Rev 2:20
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee (The Church at Thyatira… not the angel), because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

The church allowed this to happen.
You do understand that the angel of the church Jesus is speaking of is the Bishop, right? If God wanted to tell a REAL angel something I doubt he would dictate it to St.John and tell him to ‘figure out how to deliver it’. Angels KNOW God’s will as if it were their own, they have little use of written words.

But none of this has ANYTHING to do with our original discussion. You were trying to illustrate the usage of the Greek word for thee as if it meant a plurality, when in reality the usage in Revelations was singular as well. You LEFT OUT the verses that would have given the CONTEXT of the usage (i.e. 'to the ANGEL[singular] of the church) That is the cherry picking I’m speaking of.

Please stop speaking in circles.
 
Are you kidding? The OP is a pot shot at the protestants.
You do understand that the angel of the church Jesus is speaking of is the Bishop, right? If God wanted to tell a REAL angel something I doubt he would dictate it to St.John and tell him to ‘figure out how to deliver it’. Angels KNOW God’s will as if it were their own, they have little use of written words.

But none of this has ANYTHING to do with our original discussion. You were trying to illustrate the usage of the Greek word for thee as if it meant a plurality, when in reality the usage in Revelations was singular as well. You LEFT OUT the verses that would have given the CONTEXT of the usage (i.e. 'to the ANGEL[singular] of the church) That is the cherry picking I’m speaking of.

Please stop speaking in circles.
Nope… “thee” (http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs163.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs165.gif) is definitely plural.

Rev 2:24
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
 
Nope… “thee” is definitely plural.

Rev 2:24
But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Ok…

a) THEE is 2nd person singular, YOU is 2nd person plural (Google it)

b) The given verse does nothing for your argument, it only backs up my claim.
 
Ok…

a) THEE is 2nd person singular, YOU is 2nd person plural (Google it)

b) The given verse does nothing for your argument, it only backs up my claim.
Not in the Greek. You’ll have to look at the context for the meaning. That is why I used Rev 2:20. “Thee” (http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs163.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs165.gif) refers to everyone in the Church at Thyatira. The Holy Spirit used the same Greek word when Jesus talked about the keys. I’m only showing that “thee” could have referred to everyone in the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top