Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[Myhrr]

Tim Hayes:

Myrhh quote

Paul said to hold to the traditions as handed down, are we supposed to have blind faith in anyone who says that they are the only holders of this tradition? Why?

New from Tim

Myrhh that is the point, if you cannot trust the traditions as handed down by the catholic Church then you cannot trust any tradition becasue you cannot identify what is true tradition and what may not be true, it is all based on the words of men. Even the Gospel and the veracity of it is based on the words of men.

What do you base your belief in Christ on, nothing other than the words of men. You may say that the gospel etc is from God but you must rely on the words of men of bygone times to affirm to you that is the case. If you are going to affirm that God ensured the bible was faithfully maintained in its original scriptural format then you must also accept that God would have ensured that we have the correct teaching/understanding of what those scriptures mean.

If he has not ensured that we have a correct understanding of what the scriptures mean then it means that the vast majority of Christianity after Christ until the last few hundered years were not in fact Christian.

It serves no purpose for God to abandon humanity up until the reformation and then suddenly bring back the real teaching. It would mean that those previous to the reformation are all damned.

if they are not damned for all the supposed incorrect beliefs they held then ultiamtley no one can be damned becasue it would be quite obvious that no one has the true meaning and the incorrect meaning does not cost us anything.

Tim, I think the actual problem here is that Christians who believe the Gospels and the rest of the Bible are true can also read for themselves the events of Pentecost where the Holy Spirit descended equally on each and can read that the Holy Spirit descended even on those who were not baptised, so whether they come from a long tradition or a short one they tend to share the belief that believing in Christ gives them access to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit who Christ said he would send from the Father to lead into all Truth.

Yes, that can and has led to the proliferation of a wide variety of beliefs about what it means to be Christian, but the Church was told by Christ himself that he had other flocks of which it knew nothing so making a judgement on anyone who calls themselves Christian isn’t for the Church to make.

With that in mind, anyone can look at the claims of those like the RCC, Orthodox, Anglicans, others who can trace their Apostolic line back to the beginning and if they don’t like what they see they are under no compulsion to accept any of those traditions or teachings.

When some take issue with those calling themselves the Church about the many discrepancies between the teachings in the Gospels and other writings from the early years and the teachings of those now who claim they’re still that Church it’s really not sufficient to Christ’s teaching, dishonours it, to simply ignore those concerns.

To demand that everyone simply accept that ‘we’ are the true Church is insulting behaviour, a demand and behaviour we don’t see from Christ himself. The reems of apologetics to convince someone of ‘our’ truth is worthless if it comes with arrogant disregard to those discrepancies and ‘our’ tradition then becomes just one of the many interpretations.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued to Tim Hayes

If someone wants to believe in the interpretations of a particular Church because they trust that Church and isn’t bothered by any discrepancies what’s it to us? Same Christ another flock, the problems start when one flock thinks it’s the sheepdog.

The majority objections to the RCC are its claim to have the only access to the Holy Spirit and the majority claims of one Christian group against another is that its Holy Spirit is better than the others. So what? Actual war between these groups only comes when the sheepdog turns killer of those it can’t get into its pen.

The killer sheepdog tactics are always threats. Threats of a spiritual death, damnation and often, as shown realised in the long and bloody history of Christianity, threats of physical death.

But Christ has given a defence to this kind of coercion, that those who believe in Him will be saved and for those who believe that Christ is God there’s no denying He’s more than capable of fulfilling that promise. The Church has a long history of martyrdom for its belief in the freedom of Christ, the Prince of Peace.

I don’t like the Churches teaching on contraception, but I accept it and practice according to the Church, 4 children are the result.

By the way, contraception does impact upon this area, ALL of Christianity believed and taught contraception to be sinful, that was the TEACHING of all Christian groups prior to the Lambeth conference.

Remember, there is no grey area here, either contraception was either always right or it was always wrong, if it was always wrong then can any group on any of its teaching claim that God is with them, the answer is NO.

Congratulations, four must be tiring…

When did “ALL of Christianity” believe this? I think this hardly impacted before the arrival of the pill, which I think was the invention of an RCC, but I can agree that the Church considered abortion to be a sin. I’ve read that Judaism has it that life begins at birth, but I recall some early fathers believing abortion was murder.

You are free to believe what you want Myrhh, but Christianity stands on catholicism, if it does not then we can never know when and where and with whom on what teachings God stands.

God has to have ensured that the Catholic Church be the true Church, not becasue I am catholic but because if he has not my faith is based purely on arbitary beliefs, much like, Islam, hindu and the various other beliefs aroudn the world.

As I’ve written above, you are but one Church claiming this and the discrepancies between some of your teachings and those of Christ are glaring in their differences.

Putting down the beliefs of others as arbitrary doesn’t say much for your stance here, I suppose you’d have denounced Abraham for worshipping God in Jerusalem with Melchisedek at a time when the Mother Goddess was also worshipped in conjunction with God the Father. What would Jeremiah make of your statues of the Mother of God and the offering of prayers to her? He was of the sheepdog variety that thought a nasty death was too good for them…

Have you ever read the words of Krishna? Some of your interpretations of Christ’s teachings would make any alternative a better option, but Krishna has the edge on other beliefs, rational as well as devotional, a perfect retreat for those reeling under some Christian teachings. Civilized.

The ball rolls on Myrhh, time rolls on. You have a choice, embrace catholicism or live a lie.

In Christ

Tim

Oh really?

 

[Fiat]

Myrrh:

Yes, that can and has led to the proliferation of a wide variety of beliefs about what it means to be Christian, but the Church was told by Christ himself that he had other flocks of which it knew nothing so making a judgement on anyone who calls themselves Christian isn’t for the Church to make.

It seems antithetical to Christ’s message to assert that Christ Himself established relativism in His statement that there are those of another flock, which historically has always been understood to be gentiles. Aren’t you essentially asserting that we should let the Baptists do what they do because they are of one flock, let the Mormons do what they do because they are of another flock, let the Orthodox do what they do because they are another flock. I always understood Our Lord’s prayer for unity in John 17 to be exactly that: unity. When you begin to relativize Christ’s message, then doesn’t our monotheistic faith become polytheistic in essence. The Baptists have a Jesus that teaches that we don’t need to be baptized for efficacious reasons; the Mormons have a Jesus that teaches we may become Gods; the Amish have a Jesus that teaches that our salvation depends in great part to whether we wear buttons or hooks-and-eyes.

 

[Myhrr]

Fiat:

Myrrh:

It seems antithetical to Christ’s message to assert that Christ Himself established relativism in His statement that there are those of another flock, which historically has always been understood to be gentiles.

That’s been understood historically because from Paul and Peter the net spread further and Gentiles were included, however, who exactly Christ meant is still open to further understanding. He is the door to the sheepfold and its his sheep he’s talking about, to limit this by our one historic interpretation might be thought presumptious of us since he didn’t explain it at the time.

John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

I also think it’s presumptious of us to think this one fold means his little flock which he organised to be the Church no matter how many members it has, isn’t the final judgement of separating the sheep from the goats followed by an explantion of what he meant as that one fold?

Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Do you live up to that? I know I don’t. I wonder which flocks they’re in?

continued

 

[SteveG]

francisca:

Even if it is true that Jesus must have spoken in Aramaic. Yet it doesn’t confirm that the exact word He used was “Cephas”.

Besides, in the Old Testament, the word “Cephas” refers to God.

If it’s true that “Cephas” is only translation from “PetroV”, then “PetroV” carries higher originality.

Somebody may have already addressed this, but just in case.

Francisca, you are quite wrong here. Even scripture confirms for us that Jesus gave the name Cephas (not Peter) to Simon…
John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
…and the ‘which means Peter’ is actually part of the verse. Showing that John felt it necessary to clarify the naming as Cephas by translating it for his Greek readers.

Additionally, the name Cephas (for Simon) is preserved for us mutliple times in two of Saint Paul’s letters (Galatians and 1 Corinthians). Christ most certainly renamed Simon Cephas, not Peter as scripture EXPLICITELY tells us in John 1:42. Your premise that Cephas is a translation from Peter is incorrect.

 

[Myhrr]

continued

Fiat:

Myrrh:

Aren’t you essentially asserting that we should let the Baptists do what they do because they are of one flock, let the Mormons do what they do because they are of another flock, let the Orthodox do what they do because they are another flock. I always understood Our Lord’s prayer for unity in John 17 to be exactly that: unity. When you begin to relativize Christ’s message, then doesn’t our monotheistic faith become polytheistic in essence. The Baptists have a Jesus that teaches that we don’t need to be baptized for efficacious reasons; the Mormons have a Jesus that teaches we may become Gods; the Amish have a Jesus that teaches that our salvation depends in great part to whether we wear buttons or hooks-and-eyes.

Who are we to judge another flock? We have it on record that the Holy Spirit was received without baptism, we have it on record that Christ called us gods, buttons or hook-and-eyes? How does that differ from your requirement to submit intellect and will to the Pope and his magesterium even if you don’t have faith in their teachings?

What does Christ actually say in John 17? To the Father that he may glorify the Son so the Son can glorify the Father with the glory the Son had with the Father before the world was, so that we may know the Father the only true God and Jesus Christ who he has sent.

Do we or those you mentioned glorify that God? If not, why not? If we can’t live up to the entry requirement for the sheepfold in Matthew 25 then why should anyone think our God is glorious?

 

[Myhrr]

Hello Steve G! I notice we’re on both online now.

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Your lot are really hung up on authority aren’t you? The keys mean only one thing to you, the power to imprison or set free purely in the context of having power over others.

1. Authority, obedience, and faith all go together. It’s obedience to faith that Paul complements the Church of Rome on, such that their faith was known throughout the world and he was encouraged by them. Refer to Rm 1:5-12
2. Regarding the keys, I think you misunderstand. The OT prototype of passing on the keys is in Is 22:22… Giving the keys of the Davidic kingdom represent giving primary authority to the receiver of the keys, and the keys are given to one person by the king. Making that person the prime minister over all the other ministers of the king. Just as Jesus gives Peter the keys as His prime minister. The holder of the keys can bind what others bind, but can loose what others bind and bind what others loose. He has primacy.

Myhrr:

Very clear, Jesus as usual called Peter, Simon son of Jonah, he never called him Peter. Peter was used by the others when referring to Simon bar Jonah.

Jesus probably called Simon, “Peter” many times that weren’t recorded. But the times Jesus did call Simon, “Peter” was in Mt 16:18, Lk 22:34, and Jn 1:42

 

[steve_b]

SteveG:

Somebody may have already addressed this, but just in case.

Francisca, you are quite wrong here. Even scripture confirms for us that Jesus gave the name Cephas (not Peter) to Simon…
John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).
…and the ‘which means Peter’ is actually part of the verse. Showing that John felt it necessary to clarify the naming as Cephas by translating it for his Greek readers.

Additionally, the name Cephas (for Simon) is preserved for us mutliple times in two of Saint Paul’s letters (Galatians and 1 Corinthians). Christ most certainly renamed Simon Cephas, not Peter as scripture EXPLICITELY tells us in John 1:42. Your premise that Cephas is a translation from Peter is incorrect.

Using a Protestant translation, Jesus says:

**Matthew 16
**18And I tell you that you are Peter,1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades2] will not overcome it.3]

 

[Myhrr]

{To Myrrh…}

You could also have mentioned that in Revelation, it is Christ who “has the keys of death and Hell”.​

What??! Did Peter have to hand them back…??

IMO, too much apologetic is taken up with Peter, in a way that ignores the other Apostles. This is as unbalanced as denying that he had any particular primacy, even of honour.
Peter is one of a communion - there is no communion if one is alone. And headship, implies a body. The head needs the body, just as the body needs the head.

As you say, the Church is Apostolic. The “mark” is Apostolicity - not “Petrinity” . ##

Primacy of honour isn’t an early Church term at all, I think it was actually coined by Diocletian who slaughtered rather a lot of the Church. He came up with it after being offered the post of Caesar as Rome with all its internal squabbles at the time was in a right mess and the senate decided that what they needed was another Caesar to keep it all together. He’d cleverly manoeuvered himself into being candidate and stated when accepting the offer that he of course wouldn’t dream of thinking himself above the others, that they should think of him as “first among equals”, so the term comes from the enemy…

I’m still trying to explain that the Church meant one Church in various places, each bishop was the overseer of the whole Church in his particular place. This is either too difficult for me to explain or too difficult for those of a different system to understand. Whichever, the letters in the early Church can’t be understood properly unless this basic concept of Church ecclesiology is understood. Each bishop with the rest of the laity of which he is himself but one member through baptism has only Christ as its Head. All the early documents show that was a given.

Have you ever read arguments on this point between RCC and Orthodox? They’re impossible!

One of the reasons that Paul is sidelined is because he got annoyed and said he was equal to Peter, Rome doesn’t like to be reminded of that.

It must have been quite something at the time when those two met… the other Apostles humoured both by diviing up the territories into Gentile and Jew, Paul to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews, kept them quiet and out of the other Apostles hair for a while…

 

[theodorro]

FATHERS KNOW BEST, I give you one Father, you can find more writing of Church Fathers who explain “Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram edificabo Ecclesiam Meam” (You are Peter and uppon this rock…)

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (*Letters *48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).*

 

[Myhrr]

Hello Steve,

I said: Please, remember when you read the above [Ignatius to Rome]that St Ignatius of Antioch is known by all the Church and knows himself as successor to both Peter and Paul in Antioch.
steve b:

The apostles were all apostles, hand picked by Jesus, yet Peter was selected leader of the rest. Ignatius was a bishop just like all the other bishops, but Ignatius did not sit on the chair of Peter.

The Apostles were all hand picked by Christ as you say, so was Judas. Actually that can’t be true because Christ makes the point that none of them should sit at the head of the table, they’re to be servants like him, and if that isn’t clear enough the first canon he gave on the organisation of the Church surely makes it clear. There’s no other way of reading Christ’s ‘You Will Not’ in

**Luke 22
**24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Mark 10
41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

We know from this that Peter was one of those displeased with James and John for wanting a higher authority than they had, this was Christ’s response.

How can you possibly claim that Jesus gave Peter authority over the others as if a Gentile lord, or the Apostles authority over the others as the Gentile lords claimed superiority under the pretext of benign rule?

And the Church tradition from this first canon continued in the East and still exists. It was Rome that was schismatic here, breaking away from the organisation which Christ himself established.

Antioch still calls itself the See of Peter, and the term they use is Peter’s Throne. It’s incumbent on you to prove Rome’s claim to sole Petrine succession since logically, to those who think in terms of superiority, the first See of Peter takes precedence over any he established subsequently.

antiochian.org/666

hmm, interesting url…

I said: To the Church…*the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, *

Oh, that Church.

Not to the Church which presides in place of all the world.

You dismiss the fact that none of the other Church’s preside. Rome was the only one mentioned who presides. Defference is being made to Peter’s chair.

Please try and see this in context without getting hung up on a word which fits your agenda.

The Church was understood then as it is now as One Church in different places. Each bishop had Christ above him, no one else, and the bishop was ordained the servant, out of the laity to serve all (Christ’s Canon I). The bishop did not have authority over the other members of the Church of which he was only an equal member through baptism.

This is how Ignatius wrote to the Churches, how Clement wrote to Corinth, “From the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth”, the whole Church around a bishop.

continued

 

[Charbrah]

Hello Myhrr, what do you think about Steve B’s OT reference from Isaiah 22?

 

[Myhrr]

Continued to Steve b

This is what Ignatius meant in addressing the Church in Rome, that Church presiding in the place where there were Romans, not that Church presiding in the place where there were Britons, or Gauls or Indians or anywhere else.

Still doesn’t diminish the fact that Rome presides

Only in the land of the Romans.

Please read the canons of the first council of Nicaea which explain how Rome was given jurisdiction over a greater area than it had when Ignatius wrote this letter to them, a couple of hundred years later.

Before that it didn’t have jurisdiction over any other place and this new area was to given to them solely for administration purposes as the other patriarchates had already. Jurisdictions are not divisions for spiritual matters, they are for administrative purposes only, the organisation of the Church.

If as you claim Rome had been honoured by all the Church as the sole successor to Peter with authority over all the others, where is this stated? Don’t you think such an important idea would have been obvious? Why do you think you’re having to scrabble around for proof to this claim? Surely Ignatius himself would have made clear reference to it if another Church had authority over him.

I said:

Ignatius “I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles;”

…but heed me anyway…

obedience to authority is a good thing in God’s eyes…

Authority as in knowledge not superiority. Since each baptised member was and still is sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit at baptism, how could anyone claim superiority over another? Do your parents excercise superiority over you? Do they demand that you obey them with complete submission of intellect and will even if you don’t have faith in their judgements?

You might certainly honour them with authority with respect to their greater experience. Until perhaps you knew better and then I hope you’d honour them anyway for being your parents.

Originally Posted by Myhrr

Ignatius “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me.”

Why didn’t he say the Bishop of Rome instead of God? Because Jesus Christ alone will oversee it.

No argument here. Ignatius is going to be martyred. Until a replacement can be made, Antioch will be without a physical bishop. It never diminishes that Jesus is always in charge anyway over every single soul. Now whether we let Him reign in us is another thing.

But again, if the Bishop of rome was accepted by all as the supreme authority over the Church, why not mention it? Especially since he is writing to Rome?

Wouldn’t he have asked Rome to look after them if he was himself subservient to Rome? As your bishops are to your Pope.

Originally Posted by Myhrr

In the Church each member is equal through the baptism, the bishop is not apart from the laity, but one member of the laity.

This is a rather low view of holy orders vs the laity.

My point is, there is no versus laity in the Church.

Your views diminish that.

And with that I’m going to leave off answering the rest of your replies, if you feel that there is something important that I haven’t replied to, please let me know.

 

[Myhrr]

Hello all, I’ve been thinking about this post:

RBushlow:

Myhrr:

QUOTE]

Seems pretty clear to me (see Matthew 16:18-19)

Matthew 16

18 "I also say to you that you are (1) Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (2) Hades will not overpower it.
19 “I will give you (3) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (4) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Leaving aside for the moment any arguments about Peter=Rock, what do you think it actually means? How would you use this if given to you? Is it clear to you?

 

[RBushlow]

Tim Hayes:

we have no original documents in the context that we can’t prove that they were original documents, we only have the words and writings of men to testify down through the centuries about any of christianity, thus it means that we must ultiamtely rely on the traditions of men to

I believe in the Church teaches Sacred Tradition, as handed down from the Apostles, not “traditions of men”.

 

[ricatholic]

Myhrr:

Hello all, I’ve been thinking about this post:

Leaving aside for the moment any arguments about Peter=Rock, what do you think it actually means? How would you use this if given to you? Is it clear to you?

If you look at the tenses of the binding and lossing, then Peter can only bind and loose that which was already done in heaven.

BTW,I think that is the NAB version.

But that makes sense since Jesus wouldn’t abdicate His power to humans by binding Him to their decisions.

Peace

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

Hello all, I’ve been thinking about this post:
**Matthew 16
**18 "I also say to you that you are (1) Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (2) Hades will not overpower it.
19 “I will give you (3) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (4) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Leaving aside for the moment any arguments about Peter=Rock, what do you think it actually means? How would you use this if given to you? Is it clear to you?

Remember when this is happening. This is shortly before Jesus’ Assention into Heaven. So, he is designating Peter as his prime minister to guide his Church until he returns. Giving the keys is a euphamism for giving of Authority. The Lord even repeats it, saying “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven”. Clearly, when Jesus says you, he is speaking to the person of Peter. In other words “You are my vicar on earth, I give you have the power to bind and loose, declare valid or false, admit or shut out”. Not forgeting that they would all have understood this as Hebrews, as was the Hebrew custom this power would pass to Peters successors until Christ returns.

BTW, here’s a great site for seeing it from the Hebrew viewpoint:
secondexodus.com/

Yours in Christ

 

[jpusateri]

ricatholic:

If you look at the tenses of the binding and lossing, then Peter can only bind and loose that which was already done in heaven.

BTW,I think that is the NAB version.

But that makes sense since Jesus wouldn’t abdicate His power to humans by binding Him to their decisions.

Peace

You are saying a priori that Jesus wouldn’t abdicate His power to humans without backing that up with supporting evidence. Have you any?

 

[ricatholic]

jpusateri:

You are saying a priori that Jesus wouldn’t abdicate His power to humans without backing that up with supporting evidence. Have you any?

Well since he called Peter satan, for whatever reason, shortly thereafter in 16:23, I think that Jesus knew that even Peter wouldn’t always be on His side of issues.

Peace