Non Catholic Interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19

[Anna_Scott]

The only relevant question is what the “keys of heaven” meant to Jesus and to Peter. We find the answer in Judaism. The keys were the symbol of authority given by the King to his vizier (the guy appointed by the King to take authority over and watch after his household (his kingdom). The vizier’s authority was equal to the King’s. The capitalized “king” refers to King Jesus, who was crucified with a sign over his head that read “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.”

Jesus is head of His Church. By conferring the keys, Jesus appointed Peter (and his successors) as head of His Church – the kingdom of God on earth.

You will encounter many opinons, but this is the true meaning of the keys. Christianity is a revealed religion, not a guessing game as Protestants and others have made it.

See my post #22 for more info and Scriptural citations.

Peace be with you, Jim D

Jim,

I am studying the “keys” issue at present. Currently reading the Eastern Orthodox view in “The Primacy of Peter,” which most of you have probably already read. I was surprised to learn just how different the Catholic and EO views really are. It’s not just Protestants who disagree with the CC regarding Peter and the keys. EO disagree as well.

I’m still studying, so please don’t pound me.

Anna

 

[Dokimas]

I still maintain that Peter was essential to the council of Jerusalem being valid due to the power given to him by Christ which he even bears witness to in Acts15:7.

That being given I will allow the possibilty of James leading the Council.

Now explain how “leading a council” equates to James having primacy in the Church?

Looks like Peter was concerned what James thought which cause Peter to be corrected by Paul.

Gal 2:

11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Seems there was a time when Peter was hot and cold about Gentiles: sometimes sticking up for them and sometimes not so much.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

You questioned my agreement to a post. That was my answer.

The context of the keys is Peter’s confession of who Jesus is. Who Jesus is is the center of the Gospel of Jesus.

Jesus didn’t say “I give you and all believers the confession of who I am.” He said “I give you, Peter, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

As I posted earlier if I give you the keys to my house I am giving you authority over everything I own. Actual possessions, not merely a confession.

As also prefigured in Isaiah 22 the “Keys to the Kingdom” are taken from one and given to another. OT symbols cannot be the same or less than their NT realities.

You have not given be a scripture verse to back up your assertion, just your opinion.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Looks like Peter was concerned what James thought which cause Peter to be corrected by Paul.

Gal 2:

11 ¶ Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Seems there was a time when Peter was hot and cold about Gentiles: sometimes sticking up for them and sometimes not so much.

You. like “gurneyhalleck1” can’t even seem to read the passage correctly. You have it backwards-Peter seemd to have reverted after James’ men came, not before. The ones who came from James it seems were IN the circumcision group mentioned by Paul, not against them.

So the men from James are in the same error that Peter was in.

Yet Paul seems to think it important to rebuke Peter and not the circumcision group from James.

Could it be that because Peter obviously has a greater position and therefore has the greater resposibility?

Bottom line, you still have not proved that Peter’s primacy was removed because Peter was not perfect in his behavior.

 

[Dokimas]

Jesus didn’t say “I give you and all believers the confession of who I am.” He said “I give you, Peter, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

As I posted earlier if I give you the keys to my house I am giving you authority over everything I own. Actual possessions, not merely a confession.

As also prefigured in Isaiah 22 the “Keys to the Kingdom” are taken from one and given to another. OT symbols cannot be the same or less than their NT realities.

You have not given be a scripture verse to back up your assertion, just your opinion.

Just because you don’t agree with my understanding of the keys in context, doesn’t mean the verses agree with you.

Could you provide a verse or verses that show Peter was to pass on the keys to his successor?

 

[Dokimas]

You. like “gurneyhalleck1” can’t even seem to read the passage correctly. You have it backwards-Peter seemd to have reverted after James’ men came, not before. The ones who came from James it seems were IN the circumcision group mentioned by Paul, not against them.

So the men from James are in the same error that Peter was in.

Yet Paul seems to think it important to rebuke Peter and not the circumcision group from James.

Could it be that because Peter obviously has a greater position and therefore has the greater resposibility?

Bottom line, you still have not proved that Peter’s primacy was removed because Peter was not perfect in his behavior.

If I understand you, I agree with your understanding which would mean I didn’t read it incorrectly.

The part I would disagree with is if you are saying Peter’s ‘greater’ position was that the Gentiles should be circumcized. They should not, should they?

What was Paul ‘rebuking’ Peter for?

I can’t prove something was taken from Peter that you haven’t proven was given to him.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

My sincere apologies for the error. I keep tripping over my fingers while typing and many times I also put my foot in my mouth without checking out what I have typed.

You are most correct on the dates. I also wish that every Catholic knew Bible history as well as our Protestant and Orthodox brothers do. Also, knowledge of the writings of the early Church fathers along with the history of the Church would also be of great help.

Thank you for your diligence and correction. God Bless. Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

It was only a typo – my brain gets crossed sometimes, too!

My brother, the average Protestant does not know Bible history at all.
Many have memorized numerous isolated “proof texts” that they believe support their particular denomination’s interpretation as to what the Bible means, and can quote these at will, giving the impression that they “know” the Bible. But ask them for context or about Bible history and they don’t have a clue. There are exceptions, of course, but most do not learn where we got the Bible. It is unusual for a Protestant ecclesial community (I can’t bring myself to call them “churches”) to teach Bible history for obvious reasons – It came from the Catholic Church! And since V2, catechesis has been lacking so that many Catholics don’t know the history of the Bible or of Christianity either, which makes them vulnerable to proslytizing Protestants.

I had puhlenty of experience with Protestants and their “churches” during the many years I wasted imbibing anti-Catholicism as a Southern Baptist. :crying:

Peace be with you, Bro - Jim Dandy

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Jerusalem was the center of the church then. The Bible says nothing of Peter’s primacy that I’m aware of. Could you give specific scriptures. The Bible verses given before are no better than saying Paul was the leader because he wrote the most letters of the NT. BTW, if you want to compare the amount of verses written about Paul’s ministry and Peter’s ministry in Acts, who’s written about more?

Because you do not want to see it. You have to ignore a number of scriptures or else you have to accept that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But you also see endless difficulties for yourself and your preconceived notions to do such. So you rationalize and explain away, ignore and deflect.

Matt 16 should suffice for anyone has a question about Peter’s role. But you and many other Protestants have to commit grammaitcal and interpretational gymnastics to expalin away the passage. It is a fallacious idea that Jesus-who is God and Truth-must repeat himself over and over-that there must be multiple citations-in order that something that you don’t agree with to be true. The abuse of the Bible is astounding.

Show me where in the Bible it says that Jerusalem was THE central Church in the first century?

It is circular logic to assert that because Paul wrote more, then he must be the leader of the Church. Nowhere in any of his letters does he say this.

It is also circular logic to assert that everything that must be believed about the faith must be contained in the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say this.

There is plenty of historical witness by the generations after the apostles that bear witness that Peter was in Rome, that He had primacy in Rome, and that he passed on this “office” to Linus(2 Tim 4:21).

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Just because you don’t agree with my understanding of the keys in context, doesn’t mean the verses agree with you.

Could you provide a verse or verses that show Peter was to pass on the keys to his successor?

2 Peter 1:
[10] Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;
[11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15] **And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. **

What did he do?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

If I understand you, I agree with your understanding which would mean I didn’t read it incorrectly.

The part I would disagree with is if you are saying Peter’s ‘greater’ position was that the Gentiles should be circumcized. They should not, should they?

What was Paul ‘rebuking’ Peter for?

I can’t prove something was taken from Peter that you haven’t proven was given to him.

“Greater position” means that he was Pope and that he should have known better. Peter, due to his own doctrine which he was failing to follow, had the responsibilty to lead by example. He failed in that regard and was corrected by Paul. It still does not prove that Peter did not have primacy, it only proves that Peter was human.

 

[Dokimas]

Because you do not want to see it. You have to ignore a number of scriptures or else you have to accept that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But you also see endless difficulties for yourself and your preconceived notions to do such. So you rationalize and explain away, ignore and deflect.

Matt 16 should suffice for anyone has a question about Peter’s role. But you and many other Protestants have to commit grammaitcal and interpretational gymnastics to expalin away the passage. It is a fallacious idea that Jesus-who is God and Truth-must repeat himself over and over-that there must be multiple citations-in order that something that you don’t agree with to be true. The abuse of the Bible is astounding.

Show me where in the Bible it says that Jerusalem was THE central Church in the first century?

It is circular logic to assert that because Paul wrote more, then he must be the leader of the Church. Nowhere in any of his letters does he say this.

It is also circular logic to assert that everything that must be believed about the faith must be contained in the Bible. No where in the Bible does it say this.

There is plenty of historical witness by the generations after the apostles that bear witness that Peter was in Rome, that He had primacy in Rome, and that he passed on this “office” to Linus(2 Tim 4:21).

I did not say Paul was the leader because he wrote more. Neither can you say Peter was the leader and sight all the verses about him in Acts. If one is circular logic, so is the other.

The next verse isn’t a proof text but Christianity started in Jerusalem and spread out throughout the world. Why did Peter and Paul seem to always end back in Jerusalem telling the elders there what they did? Why was it the elders of Jerusalem that gave the ‘stuff’ Paul was to instruct Gentiles about?

Ac 1:8 “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

“Faith” contradicting the Bible is false faith.

I find it interesting that many of you fall back on, ‘because you don’t believe the CC is the one and only true church you can’t understand how correct we are’. What kind of reasoning is that? Your actual quote was “You have to ignore a number of scriptures or else you have to accept that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But you also see endless difficulties for yourself and your preconceived notions to do such. So you rationalize and explain away, ignore and deflect.” Again, what kind of reasoning is this? Seems circular, but what do I know?

 

[Dokimas]

“Greater position” means that he was Pope and that he should have known better. Peter, due to his own doctrine which he was failing to follow, had the responsibilty to lead by example. He failed in that regard and was corrected by Paul. It still does not prove that Peter did not have primacy, it only proves that Peter was human.

I didn’t mean to imply it proved lack of primacy. It only showed James had the higher place. I suppose that if that understanding is correct, that proves lack of Peter primacy, so you’re correct.

 

[Dokimas]

2 Peter 1:
[10] Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;
[11] so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
[12] Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
[13] I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
[14] since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
[15] **And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. **

What did he do?

2Pe 1:12 For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth.
2Pe 1:13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you,
2Pe 1:15 Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.
2Pe 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder),

Peter’s second letter was about reminding. Could you point out where he mentioned keys? Could you point out where he mentioned appointing a successor as leader of the church Jesus founded, the univeral church?

 

[Dokimas]

Because you do not want to see it. You have to ignore a number of scriptures or else you have to accept that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But you also see endless difficulties for yourself and your preconceived notions to do such. So you rationalize and explain away, ignore and deflect.

Why do many of you have to take the discussion to a personal level? Seems to show a lack of charity and maybe a lack of a good argument?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

I didn’t mean to imply it proved lack of primacy. It only showed James had the higher place. I suppose that if that understanding is correct, that proves lack of Peter primacy, so you’re correct.

:banghead: Twisting words to score cheap argument points will always prove that your position in untenable. Such abuse of the Bible is what lead me away from Protestantism to atheism.

I did not say Paul was the leader because he wrote more. Neither can you say Peter was the leader and sight all the verses about him in Acts. If one is circular logic, so is the other.

I don’t read scripture in a vacuum as you do. His primacy is evident in all four gospels, Acts, and beyond. Spiral logic, not circular.

The next verse isn’t a proof text but Christianity started in Jerusalem and spread out throughout the world. Why did Peter and Paul seem to always end back in Jerusalem telling the elders there what they did? Why was it the elders of Jerusalem that gave the ‘stuff’ Paul was to instruct Gentiles about?

Ac 1:8 “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Paul, within the 23 years of his missionary journeys went to Jerusalem THREE times. “Always” presumes too much. It seems that Peter was hardly ever in Jerusalem and that he spent at least a great majority of time in Antioch.

That Peter reported to the elders of Jerusalem begs the question, I find no scripture that Peter reported what he did to Jerusalem. You got Biblical verses to back this up?

You’re absolutely right, its not a prooftext. Next.

“Faith” contradicting the Bible is false faith.

There is NOTHING that the Church teaches that is contradicted by the Bible. There is plenty that Protestantism teaches that is.

But you have still not provided the scripture that says that “everything that needs to be believed can only be found in the BIble.”

I find it interesting that many of you fall back on, ‘because you don’t believe the CC is the one and only true church you can’t understand how correct we are’. What kind of reasoning is that? Your actual quote was “You have to ignore a number of scriptures or else you have to accept that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. But you also see endless difficulties for yourself and your preconceived notions to do such. So you rationalize and explain away, ignore and deflect.” Again, what kind of reasoning is this? Seems circular, but what do I know?

My experience with Protestantism shows that much is to be ignored in the Bible to justify Protestantism because its essential first premise is to protest, i.e. “I don’t believe”.

The logic is Spiral. The Bible is true because the Church says it is, the Church is true because God instituted a Church(1 Tim 3:15). But that is for another thread.

 

[mflorence]

Why do many of you have to take the discussion to a personal level? Seems to show a lack of charity and maybe a lack of a good argument?

Dokimas: The person you are carrying on a dialog with is just like that in his manner. Just cut it off with him like I did. I showed his stuff to some friends of mine who are RC priests today and they told me to leave him alone, so I did. Watch - he’ll start ranting at me for interjecting here. If he doesn’t start in on me with some zealot argument or comment quoting the sociopath Paul, I’ll fly to wherever you are and buy you lunch. Also, he doesn’t like historians, so he will challenge well established history as well.

 

[Dokimas]

The logic is Spiral. The Bible is true because the Church says it is, the Church is true because God instituted a Church(1 Tim 3:15). But that is for another thread.

You can’t make what’s circular a spiral. The church doesn’t make the Bible true, the Holy Spirit does. Best not to take glory that only belongs to God.

 

[Dokimas]

:banghead: Twisting words to score cheap argument points will always prove that your position in untenable. Such abuse of the Bible is what lead me away from Protestantism to atheism.

You need to take responsibility for your own misunderstandings. Stop the blame game. You don’t want to open the door to discuss which religions produced more atheists, do you? You might loose that one. Unless you misquote me, I have no idea which religion produced more atheists. That’s beyond my pay grade.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Just because you don’t agree with my understanding of the keys in context, doesn’t mean the verses agree with you.

Could you provide a verse or verses that show Peter was to pass on the keys to his successor?

Can you provide a verse or verses that show that everything revealed by God to man is contained in the Bible? Thirty-seven men, including Peter, had possessed the keys to the kingdom of heaven by the time the first Bible ever existed.

The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. And the Church selected 27 of her own writings and named them the New Testament.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[mflorence]

You need to take responsibility for your own misunderstandings. Stop the blame game. You don’t want to open the door to discuss which religions produced more atheists, do you? You might loose that one. Unless you misquote me, I have no idea which religion produced more atheists. That’s beyond my pay grade.

Dokimas - you are feeding his fantasy about being the angelic defender of a faith that doesn’t exist anymore in the way he understands it. That’s the way it was explained to me today. Even his own clergy are more pragmatic than he.