J
jimmy
Guest
That is not talking about the church and the way it is run. It is talking about the way you live your life and whether you use what you have been given in order to further the teachings of Christ.
- Status
B
Buzzard
Guest
Ah, yes Jimmy;
but there are two keys in scripture
The Key of Knowledge
- ~{Luke 11:52}~
*Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: *ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
~{Matt.13:10}~
*And the disciples came, and said unto him, *Why speakest thou unto them in parables? *11 He answered and said unto them, *Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven
Christ has the Key of David
–~{Isaiah 22:22}~ --------------- ~{Rev.3:7}~–
so he shall open ----------------- he that openeth
and none shall shut ------------- and no man shutteth
and he shall shut ---------------- and shutteth
and none shall open ----------- and no man openeth
H
hlgomez
Guest
Buzzard,
Just exactly what are you trying to prove in Isiah 22? You have so many cut-and-paste passages that I think most of us here are confused with what you are trying to prove.
Clarify please.
God bless.
Pio
Just exactly what are you trying to prove in Isiah 22? You have so many cut-and-paste passages that I think most of us here are confused with what you are trying to prove.
Clarify please.
God bless.
Pio
B
Buzzard
Guest
My “Cut and Paste” are Scripture
I am showing you where Isaiah and John are speaking of the same thing
Isaiah = Symbolic Prophesy
John = Prophesy Fulfilled
Christ has the “Keys” Isaiah spake of
For the rest of the questions asked in this thread
I’ll get to them, but like everyone else, my time is limited
I plead your patience
I am showing you where Isaiah and John are speaking of the same thing
Isaiah = Symbolic Prophesy
John = Prophesy Fulfilled
Christ has the “Keys” Isaiah spake of
For the rest of the questions asked in this thread
I’ll get to them, but like everyone else, my time is limited
I plead your patience
F
Fiat
Guest
Great replies Todd Easton!
Excatholic, you said:
Just because Jesus is our one true rock doesn’t mean that Peter isn’t our rock in a lesser way. After all, there are:
-shepherds with the one true shepherd (John 10:16; 21:15-17, Acts 20:28, Heb. 13:20;
-bishops with the one Bishop, pastors with the one pastor of our souls (1 Pet 2:25; 5:2-4; 1 Tim 3:15; Titus 1:7, Eph 4:11)
In the wider context of the Rock metaphor, Rock in the Bible is always compared to a person, and never to a confession or revelation.
In Jesus and Mary
Fiat
Excatholic, you said:
I find it tortured logic to conclude that just because Peter elsewhere refers to Jesus as the cornerstone that this negates the possibility that Jesus referred to Peter as the rock or that Peter considered himself the rock. To conclude as you have suggests that metaphors cannot be used in different ways throughout scriptures. If that is the case, then how do you explain the fact that God is called “rock” in 1 Sam. 2:2, Psalm 18:31, and Isa 44:8, and so too is Abraham called “rock” in Isa 51:1-2.
Just because Jesus is our one true rock doesn’t mean that Peter isn’t our rock in a lesser way. After all, there are:
-shepherds with the one true shepherd (John 10:16; 21:15-17, Acts 20:28, Heb. 13:20;
-bishops with the one Bishop, pastors with the one pastor of our souls (1 Pet 2:25; 5:2-4; 1 Tim 3:15; Titus 1:7, Eph 4:11)
In the wider context of the Rock metaphor, Rock in the Bible is always compared to a person, and never to a confession or revelation.
In Jesus and Mary
Fiat
R
RNRobert
Guest
Yes, Christ does have the Keys as shown in Rev 3:7. However, you err when you compare that passage to Isaiah 22.
In verses 20-22 of that chapter, the key of David is given to Eliakim son of Hilkiah. However, unlike Jesus, Eliakim is NOT king. Hezekiah was king at the time, and God was not replacing him with Eliakim. Eliakim is replacing Shebna, the master of the palace (verse 15).
In monarchial societies, there was often a position known as the prime minister (like in Japan and the UK, for instance). The prime minister wasn’t the king, but had authority in the king’s name.
Now, let’s look at Isaiah 22 in context with Rev 3:7 and Matt 16:18-19. Jesus has the keys, but what does he do with them? "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
To sum up, Jesus does indeed have the keys. But, as king, Jesus has the authority to delegate his authority to whom he sees fit. And in Matthew 16:18-19, we see he saw fit to give his authority to Peter.
B
Buzzard
Guest
Yes that may be so but we are not speaking of a
“monarchial societies” of this Earth
as he saith
My kingdom is not of this world
John says in Revlation
Christ has the Keys
and that was written long after he supposadly gave them too Peter
M
Maccabees
Guest
Well of course Christ has the keys no catholic denies that just like the OT Davidic Kings had the keys the prime ministers were the key holders however and that what Peter is ultimately is to Christ church on earth. WE cannot see or hear our King with our senses right now Jesus left us his prime minister his keyholder Peter and those of his office to bind on earth what is bound in heaven and to forgive and remit sins. The reason this stuff is so foreign to you is not scripture. Becuase it is found explcitly in scripture. Rather the church structure you see in your evangelical church has no one binding and loosing law that become universal church doctrine nor does your pastor forives and remits sin as the church Jesus founded clearly does.
Also your rather bad exegesis of the Rock not being Peter is ridiculous when you consider that protestants claim to be sharing in the priesthood of Jesus. Well according to your exegesis of Rock how could this be as Christ is the one High Priest according to scripture?
Could it be that such a narrow view of looking at the view ommits the overall truth that all christians share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
Well if you are sharing in the priesthood of Jesus (Catholics beleive this also in addition to holy orders which is another level of priesthood but all baptized christians are priests by the sacraments of baptism-partakers of the divine nature)
Couldn’t Peter share in the Rockness of Jesus.
Just as Abraham shared in the rockness of God.
Both are referred to as Rocks and Father by tradition and both have a name change that indicate a change in their stature and calling. When we see Jesus as the High Priest in scripture does that deny the truth that all Christians are High Priest? The Answer is “both and” and not the single view protestants and heretics often take. Is Jesus God or Man? The answer is both. Is Jesus nature divine or human? The answer is both. Are we saved by faith or works. The answer is both. notice a trend here?
Is God or Abraham the Rock? The answer is both. Is Peter or Jesus the Rock. The Answer is both. WHo is the keyholder Jesus or Peter? The Answer is both.
Now that we have clarified that both Jesus and PEter share the same qualites and that Jesus ultimately is the King and the ultimate Keyholder and the ultimate Rock that doesn’t escapte the other obvious thing in Matthe 16:18-19 the focu here is on Peter Jesus says you 7 times here. One wouldn’t say You and refer to yourself that is rather insane use of language. Such a referenhce would inlude the word I, guess what it’s no there.Jesus was a great speaker he wouldn’t make such an insane speach. Peter talked about who Christ was and Christ returned the favor and talked about who Peter would be. Luther and Calvin on their exegesis here admit Peter is the focus as being the Rock and Keeper of the Keys. Even they couldn’t stray from the obvious. But fundamentilist will lie to their own eyes than to admit their error. Look for truth my friend and not the tortured twisting of scripture to ok the existance of your apostate insitution.
B
Buzzard
Guest
Maccabees said:
Thats True; But, and that is a
Big But
Abraham was not “the Rock”" the Faith of Moses and the Prophets was Built upon
.
.nice try tho
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=300093&postcount=6
Post #6
Todd Easton:
alto he did “speak” and give “his opinion”
Acts Ch. 15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23413
Post #6
Todd Easton:
Peter was not the Leader; nor did he make any such decision
alto he did “speak” and give “his opinion”
Acts Ch. 15
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23413
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=300735&postcount=7
Post #7
Color by Buzz
Todd Easton:
and there in lies the Key
where the “True Teachers” have been all these years,
that the “Gentiles” have trodden down Jerusalem
could it be you are listening to the wrong “Teachers”
Post #7
Color by Buzz
Todd Easton:
He is present when his ordained Church leaders speak in His name.
and there in lies the Key
Did you happen to notice
where the “True Teachers” have been all these years,
that the “Gentiles” have trodden down Jerusalem
could it be you are listening to the wrong “Teachers”
B
Buzzard
Guest
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…735&postcount=7
Post #8
color by Buzz
Todd Easton:
ie:
John’s Authority
rejected the authority of Moses and Aaron,
why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"
if you are going too use that, then you must show beyond any doubt whatsoever, even the remotest possiability that you are not guilty of the same
for those that do, will suffer the greatest damnation possiable
if there has ever been a “Church” that has “Exalted itself”
it is Rome
Post #8
color by Buzz
Todd Easton:
and therein lies the key
ie:
John’s Authority
rejected the authority of Moses and Aaron,
why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"
if you are going too use that, then you must show beyond any doubt whatsoever, even the remotest possiability that you are not guilty of the same
for those that do, will suffer the greatest damnation possiable
if there has ever been a “Church” that has “Exalted itself”
it is Rome
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=301187&postcount=10
Post #10
Church Militant:
ie:
My kingdom is not of this world
Post #10
Church Militant:
We are not speaking of an earthly kingdom
ie:
My kingdom is not of this world
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=301198&postcount=11
Post #11
Church Militant:
for when Matthew wrote it in greek,
and Matthew knew full well what Christ meant
so your point is mote
Post #11
Church Militant:
Matters not,
for when Matthew wrote it in greek,
and Matthew knew full well what Christ meant
so your point is mote
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Why do you think Matthew wrote it in Greek? There is no evidence to support that, and, in fact, the contemporary writer Josephus specifically tells us that Matthew’s Gospel was written in “the language of the Hebrews” (that would be Aramaic). It might be (and probably is) the ONLY New Testament book that was written in Aramaic.
But it doesn’t matter. Even had Jesus been speaking Greek, he would be constrained by the structure of the language He was speaking (just as the person who translated Matthew’s Gospel was). In a language where nouns (including proper nouns, like names) take gender endings, it is often necessary to make linguistic adjustments. Jesus could NOT have called Peter “Petra” because it’s a feminine noun. But had Jesus (or Matthew’s translator) wanted to make a point of calling Peter a “small” rock, he would have used “lithos,” not “petros.” The word “lithos” occurs in MANY places and was very common; the word “petros” occurs ONLY in relationship to Peter.
I haven’t looked, but I’m pretty sure you could find this topic discussed at length on this forum…
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=312856&postcount=24
Post #24
color by Buzz
Fiat:
Post #24
color by Buzz
Lets See;
:
B
Buzzard
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=315921&postcount=35
Post #35
DavidFilmer:
thats the reason when they hung the sign over Christ it was written in
~{Luke 23:38}~
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of
Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
I get that confused every once in a while
Post #35
I know;
thats the reason when they hung the sign over Christ it was written in
~{Luke 23:38}~
And a superscription also was written over him in letters of
Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew,
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
I get that confused every once in a while
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Buzzard said:
I’m not sure what your point is. I sense you’re trying to be sarcastic, but I’m afraid your efforts are lost on me… I don’t know timezone you’re in, but you are apparently online at the same time with me at 1:30 am PST. I’ll admit I’m not at the top of my game at 1:30 am, so maybe you can elaborate somewhat…
R
RNRobert
Guest
Supposedly gave them to Peter??? So I guess, in your estimation, Matthew 16:18-19 is wrong.
Jesus is king, and as king can dispense his authority as he sees fit, and he saw fit to give them to Peter.
- Status