i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[josie_L]

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. Albright says, “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying.” Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it’s undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, “The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” In other words, the Prime Minister’s office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister’s office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. When I discovered that, it was like the blinders fell off. Within a few weeks I had gotten together with the leading Protestant theologians in the world, one of the most reputable anti- Catholic Protestant theologians and spent ten hours with him and then in a Mercedes we drove two hours and I presented this case, and his only comment was, “That’s clever.” But he said, “You don’t have to follow the Pope because of that.” I said, “Why not?” And he said, “Well, I’m going to have to think about it.” He said, “I’ve never heard that argument before.” And I said, “It’ s one of the basic arguments that Cajeton used against the Protestants in the 16th Century and Cajeton was one of the most well-known defenders of the Catholic faith and you’ve never heard of him before?” I said, “I had never heard of it before until I discovered it on my own and then found it in all these other people.” And he said, “That’s clever.” Clever, perhaps. True, definitely; enlightening, illuminating, very interesting.

He goes on to say some other things. “It is of considerable importance,” Albright says, “that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.”

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[humble_in_doubt]

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this – W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, “Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter.” In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus’ reference to the rock point only to Peter’s faith or confession. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” We will see."

I’ve never read Albright (nor obviously would I take my views from the biased protestant perspective, as I was raised Catholic), however, his presentation here is compelling.

So then it’s certainly reasonable to say we might be able to detach Peter’s faith from his special anointing (or his role as “prince” of apostles). It’s not to say we can separate the necessity of Peter’s faith from his calling, however, there might be credence to the idea that Jesus was alluding to more than just faith; he anointed Peter for something special, the role as rock.

Not to confuse Christ’s role as the “cornerstone” … but we might at least say Peter was given a temporal mission, to act as a mediator for purposes like promulgating sound doctrine (and settling disputes among the apostles), as a sort of temporal stand in for Christ.

This still doesn’t debunk my earlier point though. Even if Peter was anointed leader of the apostles in Christ’s stead, we still cannot reasonably infer that Peter’s role was meant to live in perpetuity – followed by a series of successors in the form of the Roman Papacy.

Frankly I never disputed that Peter was anointed head over the apostles (indeed this idea is affirmed by the temporal role he took on as events developed, particularly in the book of Acts). Still the same the argument must center on the question of whether Christ enumerated a role that would live in perpetuity (and morph into a papacy) or whether Peter’s mission was temporal and finite (at least while he remained on earth).

It seems to me for the first several centuries the church was not organized around the papacy. However, still the same apostolic succession existed among, as Irenaeus termed, the “apostolic churches.” Only through unanimity was the church said to be protected from error (here I paraphrase Irenaeus himself). The papacy, papal infallibility, and other concepts like sacred and ordinary magesterium developed over time (over the course of centuries in fact). Therefore, it still seems like a hard sell to me.

As for Josie’s point … I think imagining that Christ began a dynastic progression through Peter is unsupportable. I just don’t take that from Isaiah 22?

 

[josie_L]

I’ve never read Albright (nor obviously would I take my views from the biased protestant perspective, as I was raised Catholic), however, his presentation here is compelling.

So then it’s certainly reasonable to say we might be able to detach Peter’s faith from his special anointing (or his role as “prince” of apostles). It’s not to say we can separate the necessity of Peter’s faith from his calling, however, there might be credence to the idea that Jesus was alluding to more than just faith; he anointed Peter for something special, the role as rock.

Not to confuse Christ’s role as the “cornerstone” … but we might at least say Peter was given a temporal mission, to act as a mediator for purposes like promulgating sound doctrine (and settling disputes among the apostles), as a sort of temporal stand in for Christ.

This still doesn’t debunk my earlier point though. Even if Peter was anointed leader of the apostles in Christ’s stead, we still cannot reasonably infer that Peter’s role was meant to live in perpetuity – followed by a series of successors in the form of the Roman Papacy.

Frankly I never disputed that Peter was anointed head over the apostles (indeed this idea is affirmed by the temporal role he took on as events developed, particularly in the book of Acts). Still the same the argument must center on the question of whether Christ enumerated a role that would live in perpetuity (and morph into a papacy) or whether Peter’s mission was temporal and finite (at least while he remained on earth).

It seems to me for the first several centuries the church was not organized around the papacy. However, still the same apostolic succession existed among, as Irenaeus termed, the “apostolic churches.” Only through unanimity was the church said to be protected from error (here I paraphrase Irenaeus himself). The papacy, papal infallibility, and other concepts like sacred and ordinary magesterium developed over time (over the course of centuries in fact). Therefore, it still seems like a hard sell to me.

**As for Josie’s point … **I think imagining that Christ began a dynastic progression through Peter is unsupportable. I just don’t take that from Isaiah 22?

Francis, the whole point of the article was to show you that there was with the prime minister’s keys a perpetual office, a dynastic succession, that is why Jesus gave Peter the keys, the keys represent the office of the Prime Minister, and hence, a perpetual office (the Prime Minister was also the right-hand man of the King). And furthermore, when Judas was killed it was stated in the Bible that someone needed to take his office, i.e., apostolic succession. I think there are other scriptures which can attest to apostolic succession one of them having to do with the laying of hands on St.Timothy by St. Paul.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Francis, the whole point of the article was to show you that there was with the prime minister’s keys a perpetual office, a dynastic succession, that is why Jesus gave Peter the keys, the keys represent the office of the Prime Minister, and hence, a perpetual office (the Prime Minister was also the right-hand man of the King). And furthermore, when Judas was killed it was stated in the Bible that someone needed to take his office, i.e., apostolic succession. I think there are other scriptures which can attest to apostolic succession one of them having to do with the laying of hands on St.Timothy by St. Paul.

It just doesn’t seem logical to try and conflate European political theory with religion? So Peter was like Tony Blair and Christ is the king? I mean … come on? Sorry, but I don’t care what Albright said … that seems like a huge stretch to me.

 

[josie_L]

It just doesn’t seem logical to try and conflate European political theory with religion? So Peter was like Tony Blair and Christ is the king? I mean … come on? Sorry, but I don’t care what Albright said … that seems like a huge stretch to me.

Francis, it is not just what Albright had to say, because he’s probably just one of many, please read the whole article when you have the time. It’s on the website I posted when refering to Isaiah 22. And Francis why is it so illogical to believe that Christ would have a representative here on Earth (the Pope), that would tend to his sheep and feed his flock (in succession)? This was the role of Peter, the first Pope; it’s at the end of the Gospel of John.

P.S. Francis, did you read my earlier posts to you, I said something to you that wasn’t well-done of me? You hadn’t remarked upon it, and so I’m not sure if you read it.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Francis, it is not just what Albright had to say, because he’s probably just one of many, please read the whole article when you have the time. It’s on the website I posted when refering to Isaiah 22. And Francis why is it so illogical to believe that Christ would have a representative here on Earth (the Pope), that would tend to his sheep and feed his flock (in succession)? This was the role of Peter, the first Pope; it’s at the end of the Gospel of John.

P.S. Francis, did you read my earlier posts to you, I said something to you that wasn’t well-done of me? You hadn’t remarked upon it, and so I’m not sure if you read it.

If it was a snipe at me … no worries (I just won’t look for it ). As for the papacy … I’ll leave you guys to trade jabs with the protestants over this issue (I just rented a flick & I also gotta pick up a friend from the airport). See you’all later!!!

 

[josie_L]

If it was a snipe at me … no worries (I just won’t look for it ). As for the papacy … I’ll leave you guys to trade jabs with the protestants over this issue (I just rented a flick & I also gotta pick up a friend from the airport). See you’all later!!!

You have a good heart, Francis, thank you. Have fun watching your flick with your friend. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

It just doesn’t seem logical to try and conflate European political theory with religion? So Peter was like Tony Blair and Christ is the king? I mean … come on? Sorry, but I don’t care what Albright said … that seems like a huge stretch to me.

Francis, whose trying to conflate European political theory with religion, I mean isn’t it a little anachronistic to state that how we perceive the role of Peter has anything to do with European political theory, as we know that the role/office of Prime Ministership as per the Bible existed way before the advent of Europe.

P.S. It would be more apropos to state that Tony Blair “is like Peter”.

 

[Bob_McKissick]

what kind of Presbyterians are your parents? I know there’s PC(USA), the Orthodox PC (the real deal if you’re into hard line dogma), and the PC of America. If I were gonna be religious personally I’d probably be Episcopalian (they seem pretty liberal and cool), but I heard PC(USA) is pretty cool as well (and not too dogmatic). I grew up Catholic though & they’re not so bad either. Great liturgy (in most churches; though not all). The EOC is also pretty interesting (I had some Greek friends growing up & checked out their services before, very nice).

Just curious though … besides the RCC & EOC being older than the Presbyterian churches (obviously Presbyterianism is a reformed denomination, and Calvinist in origin), any other reason why you’re considering leaving the church you were raised in? Is it the “one true church” jingle of the RCC & EOC?

I will admit though … Catholic art is much better than Presbyterian art (OK Presbyterians have no art … so I guess that’s too easy huh?).

Dear Darwin: The principle of cause and effect is the philosophical basis of all the lower sciences, natural and physical, and is not to be transgressed without blowing the lesser sciences away. Darwin’s evolutionary theory contradicts the principle of cause and effect in that it demands that the lessor brings forth the greater, IE., from the first living cells( how they started to live is a mystery) larger and larger effects emerged. This means that the effect is greater than the cause which is not allowed in the principle of cause and effect wherein the effect can never be greater than the cause. Your indifferent approach to religion indicates you have been run through the secular education mill. Please approach religion in prayer and while you’re praying say one for me as I will for you. Peace and love.

 

[josie_L]

Dear Darwin: The principle of cause and effect is the philosophical basis of all the lower sciences, natural and physical, and is not to be transgressed without blowing the lesser sciences away. Darwin’s evolutionary theory contradicts the principle of cause and effect in that it demands that the lessor brings forth the greater, IE., from the first living cells( how they started to live is a mystery) larger and larger effects emerged. This means that the effect is greater than the cause which is not allowed in the principle of cause and effect wherein the effect can never be greater than the cause. Your indifferent approach to religion indicates you have been run through the secular education mill. Please approach religion in prayer and while you’re praying say one for me as I will for you. Peace and love.

oh, oh, you just got yourself a plethora of arguments coming your way. Feel free to ask for some help.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Dear Darwin: The principle of cause and effect is the philosophical basis of all the lower sciences, natural and physical, and is not to be transgressed without blowing the lesser sciences away. Darwin’s evolutionary theory contradicts the principle of cause and effect in that it demands that the lessor brings forth the greater, IE., from the first living cells( how they started to live is a mystery) larger and larger effects emerged. This means that the effect is greater than the cause which is not allowed in the principle of cause and effect wherein the effect can never be greater than the cause. Your indifferent approach to religion indicates you have been run through the secular education mill. Please approach religion in prayer and while you’re praying say one for me as I will for you. Peace and love.

Ummm … we know many aspects of natural selection are true (we don’t just think). Moreover, I’m not sure if you can say cause and effect is the “philosophical basis” of all the lower sciences. Philosophy isn’t science, and if it was it would be the lowest science.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Francis, whose trying to conflate European political theory with religion, I mean isn’t it a little anachronistic to state that how we perceive the role of Peter has anything to do with European political theory, as we know that the role/office of Prime Ministership as per the Bible existed way before the advent of Europe.

P.S. It would be more apropos to state that Tony Blair “is like Peter”.

please provide some biblical examples?

 

[josie_L]

please provide some biblical examples?

Francis, I did provide an example, I believe it was stated in part from that article I posted. How are you, by the way? Your friend is no longer with you? If you want I’ll give you the example but I’m going to have to provide it in another post.

 

[josie_L]

please provide some biblical examples?

What’s happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, “I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.”

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It’s a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, what is going on here? I’ll just summarize it in rather simple terms. **Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like Margaret Thatcher is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that’s why Eliakim is called to fill it. **

 

[breadlife]

Your wrong. Science is the sytematic study of cause and effect of obervation and experiement. Before it was called science it was called natural philosophy so I don’t see how it coudn’t be called a philosphy. Philosophy is the study of the fundmental nature of knowledge.

 

[breadlife]

Ummm … we know many aspects of natural selection are true (we don’t just think). Moreover, I’m not sure if you can say cause and effect is the “philosophical basis” of all the lower sciences. Philosophy isn’t science, and if it was it would be the lowest science.

Your wrong. Science is the sytematic study of cause and effect of obervation and experiement. Before it was called science it was called natural philosophy so I don’t see how it coudn’t be called a philosphy. Philosophy is the study of the fundmental nature of knowledge.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Your wrong. Science is the sytematic study of cause and effect of obervation and experiement. Before it was called science it was called natural philosophy so I don’t see how it coudn’t be called a philosphy. Philosophy is the study of the fundmental nature of knowledge.

In contemporary scholarship hard science and philosophy are generally viewed as two distinct subjects … irrespective of the history.

 

[breadlife]

In contemporary scholarship hard science and philosophy are generally viewed as two distinct subjects … irrespective of the history.

What do you know about hard science humble_in_doubt and why does it matter especially on a thread from a 15 year old kid who really wants to find purpose in a religion that he believes will lead him to greater truth? Your right again.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

What do you know about hard science humble_in_doubt and why does it matter especially on a thread from a 15 year old kid who really wants to find purpose in a religion that he believes will lead him to greater truth? Your right again.

why are you butting in my discussion with someone else when you obviously have no clue about what we were talking about? If you’re going to rudely butt into a discussion fine … but at least have the courtesy to read back a few posts & figure out what’s being discussed?

 

[breadlife]

My apologies humble_in_doubt. I started at the beginning and read to the end; that’s when I found the distinction you made between science and philosophy. I guess I commented out of tern and interrupted your discussion. Looks like this thread has wandered quite far away from the first question.

I see now that you are wrapped around the axel on the concept of Papal authority and apostolic succession. Josie L has his facts straight and has got you doing some reading.

Seriously, I am sorry that I distracted you. I appreciate the fact that you are searching. Josie L is kind enough to dig deeply into the details on your behalf. I have been there and have found that the details really don’t mater unless you have the ears to listen.