How do you view Matthew 16:13 through 20? What does it mean to you?

[tgGodsway]

Keep in mind that the question Jesus asked about “who do men say I AM, ?” was not a question just for Peter. It was for all of His students. Peter was the only one who got the answer Jesus was looking for. If all of them or three of them also gave the same answer, the proposition of the keys to unlock kingdom business would have been theirs in the moment they believed it too.

 

[MT1926]

Keep in mind that the question Jesus asked about “who do men say I AM, ?” was not a question just for Peter. It was for all of His students. Peter was the only one who got the answer Jesus was looking for. If all of them or three of them also gave the same answer, the proposition of the keys to unlock kingdom business would have been theirs in the moment they believed it too.

The only thing I would like to point out is technically Peter didn’t give the answer. He was given the answer form the Father in heaven (verse 17) who obviously must have had a reason why he gave it only to Peter and not all of them. Now that is the real question? Why only to Peter?

Therefore, proposition of the keys must mean something between Jesus and Peter and something for Peter alone, that Jesus did not intend for the other 11 to possess.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

I think this is flawed reasoning MT. It took Thomas a long time to see Jesus as the Christ. To suggest that the Father cherry picks disciples to reveal this specific truth is not resident in the passage. It’s just an opinion not rooted in the word. Add to that the lack of cohesive thought among all of the disciples to this notion that Peter is singled out for special treatment, and this view, to any unbiased student of scripture, is clear.

 

[MT1926]

I think this is flawed reasoning MT.

I don’t know what to tell you tg. I’m just reading the words on the page. It states.

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

First Jesus tells Peter he is Blessed.

Then Jesus tells Peter that flesh and blood has not revealed this to you. Flesh and blood to me means human reasoning, basically you didn’t figure this out on your own.

Then Jesus tells Peter that he was given this revelation directly from God.

Not sure where you are seeing the flaw? What are you seeing in the verse that isn’t there.

It took Thomas a long time to see Jesus as the Christ.

OK so what’s your point? Thomas wasn’t even mentioned by Jesus in this chapter, how does him figuring it out later have anything to do with God revealing it to Peter?

To suggest that the Father cherry picks disciples to reveal this specific truth is not resident in the passage. It’s just an opinion not rooted in the word

And this is just your opinion. Can you point out somewhere else in scripture that Jesus points out one Apostle and tells them the Father revealed something to them?

To me if nothing of any importance is going on here I can’t see why Jesus would change Simon’s name to Peter and point directly to him (when He says you) 7 times in 3 verses.

Seems a little over the top for me for a bunch of verses that aren’t really revealing anything special to us?

Add to that the lack of cohesive thought among all of the disciples to this notion that Peter is singled out for special treatment, and this view, to any unbiased student of scripture, is clear.

I’m not following what you mean here.

I think if you asked an unbiased student of scripture who Jesus is talking about in the is passage, I think it is pretty clear they would say this guy Jesus made this other guy Simon change his name to Peter and gave him a set of keys for some reason. Not sure what’s up with the name change or why keys are important but that’s what I’m reading. Also I thought keys unlocked doors but for some reason they bind and loose acording to this guy Jesus.

God Bless

 

[Mijoy2]

How does retaining sin work in the Catholic Church? When does a priest retain sin?

I’ll take a stab at this.

one way - The catholic church will retain a sin when by virtue of her dogma. The CC is retaining a sin every time an individual commits a sin which is deemed a sin by her teachings.

another way - I have heard it said that Padre Pio would not allows give absolution when he knew in his heart the sinner was not sorry or remorseful. I could see where any priest might not give absolution for the same reason. “sorry I robbed the bank but I needed the money and will probably rob a bank again next week”. The priest may decide not to give absolution on the evidence the individual is not sincere.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay MT I can’t address all of these points today. But my point isn’t about the fact that Peter received this revelation, that Jesus is the Christ. It’s more about the fact that he didn’t get this exclusively in some special case. Nor does Matthew 16 impy it . I’m waiting to see those special words. It’s not there. But the concept of believing He is the Christ is the centerpiece of the gospel. Peter was just one among many who would also answer this question correctly.

 

[MT1926]

Tell me if I’m wrong but I think why I can’t see your point and you can’t see mine is because you seem to be concentrating on the words Jesus is the Christ as the central point of these verses. Where as I would agree that this is the central point of the entire gospel. However, because of that very fact it doesn’t make sense to me to think this is what is being centrally taught here in these verses. What makes more sense to me is I see the central point being Peter’s name change, which always seems to show that God is setting that person apart for greatness as well as the only time the keys are mentioned in the New Testament.

That’s why I can’t see why other people claiming Jesus is the Christ changes what is actually going on in these verses?

 

[tgGodsway]

Yeah we both know that in that name change was also a gender change from masculine to nooter. No. The CC says more about this than St Matthew does. These ideas are woven into your interpretation without actually being on the page. Think about it. The finish line for you is the establishment of a new and different office, the head of the church, visible, called Pope. While the other head of the Church, in heaven, was already understood to be the only head. All of this was interpreted by the content of Mathew 16. What would you have done if more than Peter answered correctly in this context?

 

[MT1926]

Yeah we both know that in that name change was also a gender change from masculine to nooter. No.

You do realize no serious apologist of value, Catholic or Protestant, sees any value in the Petros/Petra line of argumentation. Anyone who took a foreign language in high school knows why some words have to be masculine and some words have to be feminine.

The CC says more about this than St Matthew does. These ideas are woven into your interpretation without actually being on the page. Think about it.

Thought about, nothing changes the meaning. Not sure what you believe St. Matthew is saying here.

Why do you believe Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (Cephas), which means Rock?

The finish line for you is the establishment of a new and different office, the head of the church, visible, called Pope.

Nope. I find it interesting that, no matter how many times we explain it to you, you refuse to get past the false presumptions you have been taught.

The Pope is the visible head of the Church on earth. He is the chief steward, the one who stands for the king while the king is away, and until the king returns?

Just like the King is still King while he is away, we believe Jesus is still the head of the Church.

It’s pretty simple. Did Jesus visible go away? Is Jesus planning on returning?

While the other head of the Church, in heaven, was already understood to be the only head.

Yep we agree with this.

All of this was interpreted by the content of Mathew 16. What would you have done if more than Peter answered correctly in this context?

Well I guess if Jesus handed the keys to more than one Apostle then we wouldn’t have the office of the Pope.

But here’s the rub He didn’t, did He? So seeing that He didn’t what are you doing about it? If you are saying if Jesus did do that then it proves something then obviously since He didn’t it must prove something. Right?

One final question do you even realize that you just accused the Church of reading to much into the verse.

The CC says more about this than St Matthew does.

And then use part of your line of defensive reasoning…

What would you have done if more than Peter answered correctly in this context?

Which is reading way to much into the verse.

I enjoy having a conversation with you tg I just wish you would have a discussion using the same rules for yourself that you apply to me.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

I disagree MT. The gender change is held as one of many very important parts to a proper interpretation. The argument always shifts to the Greek V’s Aromaic original document. Surely the earliest writers we’re aware of Matthew 16 from the aromaic text.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

It’s more about the fact that he didn’t get this exclusively in some special case. Nor does Matthew 16 impy it . I’m waiting to see those special words.

Matthew 16; 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
It was the Father in Heaven who revealed this divine revelation to Simon alone, while the devil’s who possessed flesh (individual’s) and other’s who professed Jesus to be the Son of God came from the flesh and blood.

Peter’s revelation was unique to all the other profession’s. Jesus took this sign from the Heavenly Father to begin to build His Church, thus Jesus chose Peter singularly in front of all the other apostles, to build His Church upon the Person Simon Peter = Rock. Paul also referenced Peter by His God given name as Kephas = Rock.

Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus did not build His Church upon Peter’s faith alone. Jesus build’s His Church upon receiving the Sign from His heavenly Father. Thus it was the Father in heaven who designated Simon Peter to be the head of His Church.

 

[hope]

I disagree MT. The gender change is held as one of many very important parts to a proper interpretation. The argument always shifts to the Greek V’s Aromaic original document. Surely the earliest writers we’re aware of Matthew 16 from the aromaic text.

Held by who? It seems to me that to see an importance of gender change is more to discredit that the Church is being built on Peter. It also ignores the fundamentals of gender words. What was said by Jesus is a translation. Jesus did not speak to His apostles in Greek. We do not have gender distinctions in English so it understandable that those who are looking at this will cease on a difference which really doesn’t exist. Especially as I have mentioned it further their own opinion. Jesus declares that Simon is rock (Peter) and upon this rock… to suddenly say that Jesus is not now talking about Peter is strange reasoning. The fact that Jesus does not stop there but goes on to give Peter the keys is further evidence. I would like you to address one point for me. Do you not see any significance that Jesus changed Peter’s name? Why do you think Jesus did so? Only four people in scripture had their names changed and in each it signified a leadership role. Abraham and Sara who established a covenant with God. Israel who was the leader of the Jews and Peter. So why? I have asked this question many times without answer. I am sure you have one and I am interested in it.

 

[tgGodsway]

You are Petros and upon this Petra i will build my Church. The idea that Christ was to build His Church upon Peter, the man, and thus create a special position as the head of all churches universal, on Earth while simultaneously Christ continues to rule from heaven, is an idea found nowhere in the apostolic circle . Not even a hint. The offer to see and enter the kingdom of God is for everyone. Keys of knowledge to teach kingdom ways was given to Peter in Matthew 16. But the offer to do so was rooted in the fact that Peter was the only one of the 12 at the time who answered Jesus correctly. There is no hint that His question was only offered to Peter. It is clear from the passage that Jesus reacted and responded to Peter because of his correct answer. “And I say to you, you are Petros and upon this petra I will build…”. The idea that Christ would build upon Peter is alarming.

 

[hope]

You did not address the name change. Peter was the only one that God inspired. It was the inspiration that Jesus responded to **Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.**The keys were not to teach. That is not in the passage at all but Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
This is from the footnotes of the NAB

The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from ⇒ Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” ( ⇒ Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In ⇒ Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes Jacob wrestled with an angel of the Lord and became Israel. Understood. It denotes a change in disposition. Truly Peter was changed from what he was, to who he would be, reflected in Acts. And yes The expression of the “key” is limited to only few verses but in Luke 11:52 Jesus called it a key of knowledge. This is reasonable. Because Peter, at the time, was the only disciple who spoke up with the right answer, that Jesus is the Christ, Jesus rewarded him with, “and you are Petros=rock…in a masculine gender…and upon this Petra=rock (nooter) I will build My Church.”. Why was Peter called a rock? It wasn’t because Peter had some special DNA, or a special office outside of His office to be an apostle. …an office that no one in his circle talk about, or taught about, or recognize at all. No. All of that is nothing more than conjecture. He was called a rock because of what he had just uttered: Jesus is the Christ. The Isaiah passage says many things about the the new servant, including that he will open doors that no man can open and close doors no man can close, a direct reference to Christ. It is here that the CC connected a dot to Peter by forcing into the Isaiah and Matthew passages what in essesnce Isaiah 22 was saying prophetically. The problem for me is that no Bible witness supports or even acknowledges the “two head” approach invented many years after the apostles came and went. Every gospel writer also has no supportive narrative.
But I know this doesn’t bother you because, for you, tradition overrides the silence of the N.T. writers on this matter.

 

[hope]

Yes Jacob wrestled with an angel of the Lord and became Israel. Understood. It denotes a change in disposition. Truly Peter was changed from what he was, to who he would be, reflected in Acts.

tg this is a very weak explanation as to why Jesus changed Peter’s name. Abraham and Sarah’s names were changed to reflect that they would be the parents of many God was establishing a people.
Israel’s name was changed it meant a new nation as that nation came to be know by his name Israel.
To say that Peter was changed is true but it does not explain what reason Jesus had in changing it.
Just because Jesus spoke of keys of knowledge does not mean it is the same keys He spoke of when He gave them to Peter. One He calls knowledge the other He says are to heaven. The keys of knowledge Jesus is condemning lawyers. The other Keys Jesus is giving to Peter to bind and loosen.

No where does it say that you should look to Scripture for your all your answers. You have a mistaken idea that you have to have two witnesses which is a misinterpretation of scripture. Jesus did not give a command to write everything down and follow the writings. Scripture came out of the Church the Church did not come out of Scripture.

 

[GladTidings]

…an office that no one in his circle talk about, or taught about, or recognize at all.

The problem for me is that no Bible witness supports or even acknowledges the “two head” approach invented many years after the apostles came and went. Every gospel writer also has no supportive narrative.

Do you think maybe you are requiring the Bible to be more clear? Why would that be? The reason you are missing proof is because the denomination with which you associate is an offshoot of Protestantism which originated with a schism.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay Hope, you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

 

[tgGodsway]

No. I disagree. The sum of the Word is truth. PS.119:160

 

[hope]

Of course everyone has an opinion. I just wish you would have been able to explain to me why Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock). Why Jesus gave Peter keys to heaven? You speak of no Bible witness but there is one and the is Jesus. His actions show that He was grooming Peter. Jesus renames Peter a significant act which you cannot explain away. Abraham and Sarah receive the covenant, Israel becomes father of the 12 which is the beginning of the Jewish nation and Peter is made rock the foundation of Jesus Church. . Jesus names Simon Cephas from the Aramaic word Kepa (rock) which was translated into Greek as Peter. I don’t think it is insignificant that Peter is always mentioned first. That Jesus prayed for him and that Jesus ask Peter to feed His sheep. To deny that Peter has a leadership role is to deny scripture.