Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Bible was first ( originally ) formulated at the Council of Rome in 325 AD. There was NO OT before 200 AD. All the Jews had was the Pentateuch and it was not even considered official. Various scriptures were used in the synagogues and these were not used by all. The Tanakh, the official Hebrew canon or OT, was instituted in 200 AD. And the Church was known as the Catholic Church for over 100 years by then.

Just for clarification;

The **Hebrew Pentateuch, Psalms and the prophets were all translated from Hebrew to Greek **before Christ was born (250-125 BC) called the Septuagint. Although tradition has it that some of the Hebrew (Old Testament) books were still in circulation during Jesus lifetime on earth.

The first century Jews possessed all the Septuagint books including some of the Hebrew and some in Aramaic who later removed 7 of these books from the Septuagint, thus your 200 AD Jewish canon surfaced less 7 books from the Septuagint, which the protestants followed these Jews who removed them to discredit Jesus and his apostles. For Which the Catholic Church canonized the (Old Testment) Septuagint, because Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint scriptures, but that is another topic.

Peace be with you

 

[Javl]

Eutychus123:
For sources try Catholic Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, or any source of Hebrew ( Jewish ) history.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[1beleevr]

What is my point? Did you read the title of this thread?

I am stressing the fact that Peter is the ROCK - the KEPHA. There is no differentiation from "You are KEPHA" and "on this KEPHA, I will build my Church". That is the entire point of this thread.

In your last post - you said that Peter is called "Cephas" (lower case) in John 1:42 . WHERE do you get “lower case” from??

You also say in another post that ALL who are in Christ are part of the Church. NOT so.
There are many Christians (Protestants) who are separated from the Church. If you are not part of the Catholic Church, obedient to the Magesterium - you are not part of it and you need to come home.

Yes, I noticed the title of this thread! What I mean is, what does when the Gospels were written have to do with when Jesus changed Peter’s name? And us noncatholic Christians may be separaed from the catholic church, but we are connected to Christ through our baptism, our faith and His forgiveness! We re not part of the cc, you’re correct. But we are a part of Christ’s church! You probably needto go home!

 

[Mike2010]

Yes, I noticed the title of this thread! What I mean is, what does when the Gospels were written have to do with when Jesus changed Peter’s name? And us noncatholic Christians may be separaed from the catholic church, but we are connected to Christ through our baptism, our faith and His forgiveness! We re not part of the cc, you’re correct. But we are a part of Christ’s church! You probably needto go home!

If Christ founded one Church, then logically, how can there be so many different denominations and interpretations? How can thousands of different denominations disagree on so many different things?

Do you think Christ meant for His Church to be this way?

 

[elvisman]

Yes, I noticed the title of this thread! What I mean is, what does when the Gospels were written have to do with when Jesus changed Peter’s name? And us noncatholic Christians may be separaed from the catholic church, but we are connected to Christ through our baptism, our faith and His forgiveness! We re not part of the cc, you’re correct. But we are a part of Christ’s church! You probably needto go home!

**As for what the Gospels - when they were written has a lot to do with how John’s gospel was written. It is abundantly clear that John was writing to the Gnostics when he wrote his version. This is evident in many passages especially the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. We know this by Ignatius’s letters that refer to the Gnostics’ rejection of the Holy Eucharist. John 6 is adamantly clear about the Real Presence.

**As for the Christ’s Church, actually - you’re not part of his Church because he only established ONE - not thousands. You’re part of what Benedict XVI (Peter’s successor) called ecclesiastical communities - NOT churches in the true sense of the word. **

To be part of Christ’s Church - you would have to be faithful to his Church by being obedient to the Magesterium (Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

PS - I AM home in Christ’s only Church - waitin’ for you, brotha. . .

 

[mflorence]

Perhaps we do.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The Bible was first ( originally ) formulated at the Council of Rome in 325 AD.

For the record, just noticed a typo –

Council of Nicea - A.D. 325

Council of Rome - A.D. 382

Great post! Wish every Catholic knew Bible history.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Perhaps we do.

To what question or post does your comment relate, please?

About your signature. Just curious. Does this mean you believe all religions are equally true and therefore it makes no difference which one accepts, or that no religion is true and therefore they are all irrelevant? Or something else?

Peace be with you,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to at last belong to the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church

 

[mflorence]

To what question or post does your comment relate, please?

About your signature. Just curious. Does this mean you believe all religions are equally true and therefore it makes no difference which one accepts, or that no religion is true and therefore they are all irrelevant? Or something else?

Peace be with you,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to at last belong to the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church

To what question or post does your comment relate, please?

ANSWER: Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant that it is possible that perhaps we hold the keys to Heaven.

About your signature. Just curious. Does this mean you believe all religions are equally true and therefore it makes no difference which one accepts, or that no religion is true and therefore they are all irrelevant? Or something else?

ANSWER: All three. It requires some contemplation though.

 

[mflorence]

Another question along that same line, since the post makes reference to the keys to heaven. I’m curious as to what the term “keys to heaven” means to other people. Catholics, Protestants, whomever - just interested in some thoughts.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

To what question or post does your comment relate, please?

ANSWER: Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant that it is possible that perhaps we hold the keys to Heaven.

Not possible. For us to hold the keys to heaven would mean that we don’t need a Savior, we can get to heaven under our own powers-this is absurd.

About your signature. Just curious. Does this mean you believe all religions are equally true and therefore it makes no difference which one accepts, or that no religion is true and therefore they are all irrelevant? Or something else?

ANSWER: All three. It requires some contemplation though.

Illogical. The notion violates the law of non-contradiction. It simply makes no sense. Something cannot be at the same time both “A” and “not A”. The road to Boston cannot be the road to Boston and at the same time not the road to Boston.

You may think it “high-minded” or “enlightened”, but in reality the thought is nonsensical.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Another question along that same line, since the post makes reference to the keys to heaven. I’m curious as to what the term “keys to heaven” means to other people. Catholics, Protestants, whomever - just interested in some thoughts.

If I give you the keys to my house I am giving you authority over everything I posess and trusting that you will safeguard what is mine.

In a larger sense we still have cermonies where someone is given the “Key to the City”. Now it is merely an honorary title since our cities no longer have walls and gates to defend them. But in the past the honor of holding the key to the city was a very great honor and meant that that person had accepted a great responsibility to safeguard the city.

So in the terms of the Kingdom of God the fact that Jesus first gave Peter these Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven(or God-they are interchangeable)is important; Jesus is giving Peter a responsibility that really is reserved for God alone. Jesus is trusting the holiness of heaven to a man-abeit a man who He is filling with His Spirit-but a mortal man still. That Jesus is risking the holiness of the Kingdom to mortals shows a great amount of love and trust. But, as He promised, He did not leave us orphans. We have the Spirit to guide us “to all truth.”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Another question along that same line, since the post makes reference to the keys to heaven. I’m curious as to what the term “keys to heaven” means to other people. Catholics, Protestants, whomever - just interested in some thoughts.

Everyone can have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. They are simply the words of Jesus.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Everyone can have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. They are simply the words of Jesus.

That is the failiure of sola-scriptura-everyone is their own pope to their own church.

I want to know where it says in the Bible that everyone can have the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?

 

[1beleevr]

As for what the Gospels - when they were written has a lot to do with *how *John’s gospel was written. It is abundantly clear that John was writing to the Gnostics when he wrote his version. This is evident in many passages especially the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. We know this by Ignatius’s letters that refer to the Gnostics’ rejection of the Holy Eucharist. John 6 is adamantly clear about the Real Presence.

As for the Christ’s Church, actually - you’re not part of his Church because he only established ONE - not thousands. You’re part of what Benedict XVI (Peter’s successor) called ecclesiastical communities - NOT churches in the true sense of the word.

To be part of Christ’s Church - you would have to be faithful to his Church by being obedient to the Magesterium (Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).

PS - I AM home in Christ’s only Church - waitin’ for you, brotha. . .

Well, I haven’t been a catholic for my 43 years of following Christ, and I don’t look to join up before I go to Heaven! I belong to Jesus; He purchased me with His blood, and then I was baptized into the Body of Believers! I follow Matthew 28:19-20, and the Second greatest, Commandment. It seems to me that one of the reasons that people left when He began talking about eating His Flesh, and drinking His Blood, is they were disgusted, thinking some kind of cannibalistic thing!Today, we ALL eat bread or wafers, so we don’t “eat” His Flesh(literally, anyway), or drink His Blood! Doesn’t this passage about Jesus selecting His disciples, appear in every Gospel? Is John the only one who used the word Cephas? Simon was also called Peter right? I am right where God wants me, spending every day with Jesus, no matter where I am!

 

[1beleevr]

If Christ founded one Church, then logically, how can there be so many different denominations and interpretations? How can thousands of different denominations disagree on so many different things?

Do you think Christ meant for His Church to be this way?

Christ’s church is multi-cultural, multi ethnic, knows no color barriers, and all are welcome to join the Body.I think Jesus wanted His church to be united, but not exclusive or narrow minded; including man’s rules along with God’s!

 

[mflorence]

Not possible. For us to hold the keys to heaven would mean that we don’t need a Savior, we can get to heaven under our own powers-this is absurd.

RESPONSE: Thank You for your response. That gives rise to two more questions if I may. The first being that if we don’t hold the keys to heaven, who does? The second being that if we need a Savior as you said, and then in fact had a Savior, and it has nothing to do with your own power as you said, then there is nothing for one to do to get into heaven but to have a Savior regardless of anything one might do? My sense is that we have some part in the process, even if you have a Savior, which would mean to some extent we might in some way have the keys as well.

Illogical. The notion violates the law of non-contradiction. It simply makes no sense. Something cannot be at the same time both “A” and “not A”. The road to Boston cannot be the road to Boston and at the same time not the road to Boston.

RESPONSE: Actually I will have to insist that what I said makes perfect sense, but it requires thought. In the much simpler example that you gave, where the Road to Boston can’t be the road to Boston and not the road to Boston, I think it depends on your perspective. If I were to take interstate 90 eastbound, it is the road to Boston. If I take it westbound, is it not now the road to New York? So it is from that perspective, both the road to Boston and not the road to Boston. The truth I stated is a bit more far-reaching than that, but I hope I have answered the example you gave.

You may think it “high-minded” or “enlightened”, but in reality the thought is nonsensical.

RESPONSE: Actually I wasn’t thinking it was high minded or enlightened, but those would be nice goals I suppose. Unfortunately, in this case it’s just the way I think, and not intended to be anything more.

 

[mflorence]

Everyone can have the keys to the kingdom of heaven. They are simply the words of Jesus.

Thank you Richard, I think that resonates well. It makes a good deal of sense to me, both simple and profound.

 

[mflorence]

If I give you the keys to my house I am giving you authority over everything I posess and trusting that you will safeguard what is mine.

In a larger sense we still have cermonies where someone is given the “Key to the City”. Now it is merely an honorary title since our cities no longer have walls and gates to defend them. But in the past the honor of holding the key to the city was a very great honor and meant that that person had accepted a great responsibility to safeguard the city.

So in the terms of the Kingdom of God the fact that Jesus first gave Peter these Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven(or God-they are interchangeable)is important; Jesus is giving Peter a responsibility that really is reserved for God alone. Jesus is trusting the holiness of heaven to a man-abeit a man who He is filling with His Spirit-but a mortal man still. That Jesus is risking the holiness of the Kingdom to mortals shows a great amount of love and trust. But, as He promised, He did not leave us orphans. We have the Spirit to guide us “to all truth.”

That’s actually a very beautiful explanation.

 

[mflorence]

That is the failiure of sola-scriptura-everyone is their own pope to their own church.

REPLY: You are correct in that there is only one pope in one church. Yet there are other churches with no pope, and they are churches nonetheless. My sense is that anyone who comes in the name of the Lord is blessed, or the phrase would have to have been “blessed are some who come in the name of the Lord.”

I want to know where it says in the Bible that everyone can have the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?

REPLY: Can you elaborate on that a bit? I need a bit more clarification. Are you saying that only Peter has the keys to heaven, or only one church has the keys to heaven? I can’t honestly tell which you are saying. What are the implications?