Peter was never a bishop of Rome or at Rome, CC does not teach it anymore

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nicea325
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
highrigger1 said:
The keys is another issue for another thread. They do not mean what you think.

Peace, JohnR
Click to expand...
I’ve just wrote a Paper on this, including the Keys in reference to the Royal Tradition shown through the Old Testament and Jewish literature. I would very much like to hear what you think ‘scholarly’ interpretation is on the Keys, since I have just researched it at length myself…
 
Skeptic92 said:
I’ve just wrote a Paper on this, including the Keys in reference to the Royal Tradition shown through the Old Testament and Jewish literature. I would very much like to hear what you think ‘scholarly’ interpretation is on the Keys, since I have just researched it at length myself…
Click to expand...
Well my dear brother, I don’t believe you’ll recieve a response since he was banned. Perhaps someone else would like to engage you? 😉

Peace
 
GaryTaylor said:
Well my dear brother, I don’t believe you’ll recieve a response since he was banned. Perhaps someone else would like to engage you? 😉

Peace
Click to expand...
I do hope so, I would like to put those weeks of reading journals, books, lecture notes, transcripts and visits to the National Library of Wales to good use! The most respected scholarly opinion (especially within the field of Biblical Studies) is that the Keys represent a fulfilment of Isaiah 22:22, fills the office of ‘Prime Minister’ within Christ’s new permanent Davidic Kingdom, amongst other things. I would like to hear reputable scholars arguing otherwise, specifically within a peer-reviewed work (in the case of an academic peice, if it’s not peer-reviewed take with a pinch of salt). As my paper was heavily in favour of the current interpretation, as it is the predominate reading amongst Biblical Scholars.
 
Skeptic92 said:
I do hope so, I would like to put those weeks of reading journals, books, lecture notes, transcripts and visits to the National Library of Wales to good use! The most respected scholarly opinion (especially within the field of Biblical Studies) is that the Keys represent a fulfilment of Isaiah 22:22, fills the office of ‘Prime Minister’ within Christ’s new permanent Davidic Kingdom, amongst other things. I would like to hear reputable scholars arguing otherwise, specifically within a peer-reviewed work (in the case of an academic peice, if it’s not peer-reviewed take with a pinch of salt). As my paper was heavily in favour of the current interpretation, as it is the predominate reading amongst Biblical Scholars.
Click to expand...
Amen!👍
 
Skeptic,

Would look forward to your studies…if you go to another thread here on this forum, ’ Catholic and Protestant authority’…the ‘keys’ have just been brought up again…

Why not join?
 
‘Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism’ is the actual thread title…and we have a very good non-Catholic onboard discussing this.
 
Skeptic92 said:
I’ve just wrote a Paper on this, including the Keys in reference to the Royal Tradition shown through the Old Testament and Jewish literature. I would very much like to hear what you think ‘scholarly’ interpretation is on the Keys, since I have just researched it at length myself…
Click to expand...
Skep,

In your research did you come across “Jesus Peter and the Keys” by Dahlgren, Butler, et al…?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvtosew
I respectfully disagree. No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other apostles.
I do take all scripture into account. And I do not take it literally meaning I don’t take one verse and run with it.
Click to expand...
Come again? No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other Apostles? Says who? You? No offense, I’d rather take the words of God Himself (Jesus).

You take all scripture into account? Then apparently you have a profound misunderstanding of what keys refer to going back to the OT.
 
Nicea325 said:
Come again? No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other Apostles? Says who? You? No offense, I’d rather take the words of God Himself (Jesus).

You take all scripture into account? Then apparently you have a profound misunderstanding of what keys refer to going back to the OT.
Click to expand...
Jesus was addressing all the apostels when he spoke those words, read the Bible.
 
Luvtosew said:
Jesus was addressing all the apostels when he spoke those words, read the Bible.
Click to expand...
*He said unto them, But whom say you that I am?
**And Simon Peter ** answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.*

This is from the King James Bible. The dialog clearly shows that Jesus is talking directly to Peter since it’s Simon’s name that changes to Peter. There is no break in the dialog until after he is finished speaking directly to Peter.
 
Luvtosew said:
Jesus was addressing all the apostels when he spoke those words, read the Bible.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I don’t think you read my response to you, so I’ll paste it below:

Historians such as Brown (and others) unanimously conclude that Peter served as a representative figure of Christian discipleship. Apart from historical evidence, Holy Scripture supports their view that Peter is given special attention among the apostles. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (from Jesus, no less), and called the “rock” on which Christ’s Church will be built (see Matt. 16:18-19). Furthermore, Peter’s confession is singled out and he is called “blessed” for having received revelation from the Father. And apart from Peter’s role in salvation (the power to bind and loose), we can also see (and historians recognize) Peter’s role in resolving problems for the post-Easter church (Matt 17:24-27).

Finally, Brown and his protestant colleagues note in [their book] Peter in the New Testament, that there is a “Petrine trajectory” that manifests in Scripture (and in the early Church). This “trajectory” describes Peter’s image in the early Church as pastor, missionary, martyr, confessor of the faith, receiver of special revelation, and guardian of the faith (read: bishop). No other apostle, including Paul, is regarded with such high esteem as Peter. Indeed, in 2 Peter we see Peter interpreting Pauline tradition. (See 2 Peter 3:15-16).
 
GaryTaylor said:
Well my dear brother, I don’t believe you’ll recieve a response since he was banned. Perhaps someone else would like to engage you? 😉

Peace
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting highrigger1 has been banned from this forum? For repeating the views of historians? Have I got this wrong? I hope so.
 
stewstew03 said:
Respectfully, I don’t think you read my response to you, so I’ll paste it below:

Historians such as Brown (and others) unanimously conclude that Peter served as a representative figure of Christian discipleship. Apart from historical evidence, Holy Scripture supports their view that Peter is given special attention among the apostles. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (from Jesus, no less), and called the “rock” on which Christ’s Church will be built (see Matt. 16:18-19). Furthermore, Peter’s confession is singled out and he is called “blessed” for having received revelation from the Father. And apart from Peter’s role in salvation (the power to bind and loose), we can also see (and historians recognize) Peter’s role in resolving problems for the post-Easter church (Matt 17:24-27).

Finally, Brown and his protestant colleagues note in [their book] Peter in the New Testament, that there is a “Petrine trajectory” that manifests in Scripture (and in the early Church). This “trajectory” describes Peter’s image in the early Church as pastor, missionary, martyr, confessor of the faith, receiver of special revelation, and guardian of the faith (read: bishop). No other apostle, including Paul, is regarded with such high esteem as Peter. Indeed, in 2 Peter we see Peter interpreting Pauline tradition. (See 2 Peter 3:15-16).
Click to expand...
Apostle John is. Blessed Peter is only an Apostle, while St.John is Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet.

Plus, John was the Beloved Apostle 😉
 
CopticChristian said:
Skep,

In your research did you come across “Jesus Peter and the Keys” by Dahlgren, Butler, et al…?
Click to expand...
The book rings a bell, but it’s not within my bibliography so I never directly or indirectly referenced in within my work. I will probably find a small reference to it within the stacks of notes I have for this paper.

The research I done was lengthy, because while it isn’t technically part of my course (my biblical studies module finished last week, with a presentation and two Exegesis, one of the NT and one of the OT), I have submitted it for peer-review and the chance of having it published in a Undergraduate Theology Journal. So the chance I came across it is quite likely, but it’ll be buried in amongst every other bit of notes :o.
 
Wisely said:
Plus, John was the Beloved Apostle 😉
Click to expand...
Possibly - it’s my understanding that there’s no conclusive evidence that John is the “beloved apostle.” However, if John is “beloved” I don’t think it weakens the evidence of Peter’s prominence among the Twelve.
 
JustaServant said:
Now thats an interesting first post for a “newbie”.
😉
Click to expand...
JS, I’m sure PickyPicky just happened to come across this site, and this particular thread, noticed the post about highrigger1 being “banned” and just had to go ahead and register for an account to discuss that particular post…:cool:
 
Luvtosew said:
Jesus was addressing all the apostels when he spoke those words, read the Bible.
Click to expand...
Not only do I read it, I comprehend it because it is crytsal clear Jesus speaking directly to Peter not the entire 12. Perhaps you should check your Bible if it has been properly translated?
 
It’s also very clear in the RSV-CE that He is speaking directly to Peter. So there’s one Protestant translation (KJV) and one Catholic.

Perhaps Luvtosew will be so kind as to tell us what translation she’s using, that contradicts both.
JonathonofOhio said:
*He said unto them, But whom say you that I am?
**And Simon Peter *** answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

This is from the King James Bible. The dialog clearly shows that Jesus is talking directly to Peter since it’s Simon’s name that changes to Peter. There is no break in the dialog until after he is finished speaking directly to Peter.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top