Peters Keys to the Kingdom

[ibetrippin07]

Ok clearly and let me know if im the only one that thinks this or…? but it seems to me that the major dif between the Catholics and protestants is clearly Peter and his keys to the kingdom which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea.
your thoughts?

 

[Louie1983]

Ok clearly and let me know if im the only one that thinks this or…? but it seems to me that the major dif between the Catholics and protestants is clearly Peter and his keys to the kingdom which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea.
your thoughts?

Yes that is major obstacle between Catholics and non-catholics. Catholics believe that the Jesus handed the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter to govern his church here on earth! While non-catholics believe differently as you have stated when you said “which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea”

Well i have plenty of bible passages that prove the primacy of Peter, here are some:

• Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
• Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
• Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
• Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

 

[ricko]

Ok clearly and let me know if im the only one that thinks this or…? but it seems to me that the major dif between the Catholics and protestants is clearly Peter and his keys to the kingdom which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea.
your thoughts?

Needing other scriptures is ok but that is not really the point. It only takes ONE verse of scripture taken in context to prove something. More verses may reinforce the point but does not add any more proof to it.

 

[YADA]

Ok clearly and let me know if im the only one that thinks this or…? but it seems to me that the major dif between the Catholics and protestants is clearly Peter and his keys to the kingdom which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea. … your thoughts?

WELCOME Why would you believe this … Why would Peter feel the need to fill the Office of Judas … but not recognize his own office? …

“Let another his office take.”

Also have you ever read Isaiah?

… The Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom … [please note that David is long dead … so in Isaiah we are looking at the successor’s to the Offices … both the King’s and the Prime Minister’s] … the Prime Minister recieves the “Key to the Kingdom” to “open what no other may shut” and to “Close what no other may open” … The people call this Prime Minister “Abba” [Father, Daddy, Papa or Pope - all ways of saying father] …

And please do not come back with Revelation where Jesus holds the keys … the Prime Minister receives is key from the King … the King does not relinguish His own power or authority when he chooses a representative whom He authorizes to act on His behalf … the king always keeps and holds the “master” key …

Now Jesus quotes Isaiah almost word for word … it was very clear that he established Peter as the "holder"of the Keys …

Peter - alone and unigue - of all the apostles is renamed … from Simon to Peter [the Rock upon which the Church of Christ is built] … no other apostle is so renamed … look at the others who are re-named … they fullfill a leadership role in Salvation history …

Look how Jesus tells Peter that Satan has specifically targeted him … why not all of the Apostles? …

You “be tripin” up in your thinking …

All of the Apostles held “offices” … and Peter [and his successors] was the chosen leader - the head of the Apostles [and the Bishops who followed them]… chosen by Jesus … like the Seat of Moses - to which Jesus referred …

 

[Louie1983]

WELCOME Why would you believe this … Why would Peter feel the need to fill the Office of Judas … but not recognize his own office? …

“Let another his office take.”

Also have you ever read Isaiah?

… The Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom … [please note that David is long dead … so in Isaiah we are looking at the successor’s to the Offices … both the King’s and the Prime Minister’s] … the Prime Minister recieves the “Key to the Kingdom” to “open what no other may shut” and to “Close what no other may open” … The people call this Prime Minister “Abba” [Father, Daddy, Papa or Pope - all ways of saying father] …

And please do not come back with Revelation where Jesus holds the keys … the Prime Minister receives is key from the King … the King does not relinguish His own power or authority when he chooses a representative whom He authorizes to act on His behalf … the king always keeps and holds the “master” key …

Now Jesus quotes Isaiah almost word for word … it was very clear that he established Peter as the "holder"of the Keys …

Peter - alone and unigue - of all the apostles is renamed … from Simon to Peter [the Rock upon which the Church of Christ is built] … no other apostle is so renamed … look at the others who are re-named … they fullfill a leadership role in Salvation history …

Look how Jesus tells Peter that Satan has specifically targeted him … why not all of the Apostles? …

You “be tripin” up in your thinking …

All of the Apostles held “offices” … and Peter [and his successors] was the chosen leader - the head of the Apostles [and the Bishops who followed them]… chosen by Jesus … like the Seat of Moses - to which Jesus referred …

nice!

 

[ibetrippin07]

Yes that is major obstacle between Catholics and non-catholics. Catholics believe that the Jesus handed the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter to govern his church here on earth! While non-catholics believe differently as you have stated when you said “which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea”

Well i have plenty of bible passages that prove the primacy of Peter, here are some:

• Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
• Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
• Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
• Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
• John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Peter is not the first actually, its John the Baptist. I suppose if you want to be technical you can say Peter is the first but also is his brother.
2nd the church is not a structure and the rock is clearly Christ. so im not really sure why you cited that one. The church has stood against the gates of hell many times.
and thats nice that Jesus told that to peter but honestly I dont think that has anything to do with a succession system of a physical church…

 

[ibetrippin07]

Im familiar with Judaic history and their system of kings. and thats great. But these people or prophets as they should be called were hand picked and wrote parts of the bible… we dont do that anymore…supporting evidence is “the oracles of God was given to the Jews” or something like that, excuse my laziness lol

 

[YADA]

Im familiar with Judaic history and their system of kings. and thats great. But these people or prophets as they should be called were hand picked and wrote parts of the bible… we dont do that anymore…supporting evidence is “the oracles of God was given to the Jews” or something like that, excuse my laziness lol

So what would you call the New Testament? …

Is Jesus the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords or not? …
Is Jesus the fullfillment of the Davidic Kingdom or not? Why the imagery of David at all?

Why the reference to being a “Shoot of Jesse” - David’s father?

Why would Jesus quote Isaiah?

Why did Peter quote the Hebrew Scriptures [OT] regarding the “office” when Peter decided that a successor was needed to take the position Judas left? … the Apostles were never called ‘office’ holders and no one challenged Peter in this regard … if Judas held an office that needed filled why not Peter? …

You need to reflect upon this … spend some time with the questions, look at the scriptures, read the early fathers in the faith … think outside the biases that form your angst regarding the Petrine Office

 

[Louie1983]

Peter is not the first actually, its John the Baptist. I suppose if you want to be technical you can say Peter is the first but also is his brother.
2nd the church is not a structure and the rock is clearly Christ. so im not really sure why you cited that one. The church has stood against the gates of hell many times.
and thats nice that Jesus told that to peter but honestly I dont think that has anything to do with a succession system of a physical church…

No actually your wrong, John’s task was not become a disciple he was there to clear they way for the Jesus, announce he’s coming! John was not to become one of the chosen apostles, he had a specific purpose that god wanted him to carry out.

The church is not a structure? then why does he appoint 12 apostles in the first place? why have they been commanded to preach the good news? why does he promise that he will never leave his church? Yes Jesus is the rock but he has passed this authority onto peter here on earth! Hence why he said “to you i hand the keys…”

Jesus told peter that but you don’t think it has anything to do with a system of a physical church? are you questioning what jesus was saying? hmmmm interesting. Unfortunately for you, there many bible passages and thousands of early church father quotes that support the primacy of peter and papal succession.

 

[ibetrippin07]

So what would you call the New Testament? …

Is Jesus the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords or not? …
Is Jesus the fullfillment of the Davidic Kingdom or not? Why the imagery of David at all?

Why the reference to being a “Shoot of Jesse” - David’s father?

Why would Jesus quote Isaiah?

Why did Peter quote the Hebrew Scriptures [OT] regarding the “office” when Peter decided that a successor was needed to take the position Judas left? … the Apostles were never called ‘office’ holders and no one challenged Peter in this regard … if Judas held an office that needed filled why not Peter? …

You need to reflect upon this … spend some time with the questions, look at the scriptures, read the early fathers in the faith … think outside the biases that form your angst regarding the Petrine Office

Dont you know why the jews didnt accept Jesus Christ in the first place!?!?
They were looking for a king and even tried to make him a king but he refused because his kingdom is not on this earth. The Jews were literally looking for a person to come and drive the romans away and unite israel under one king yet Christ came with this mixing of Jews and Gentiles. Because of his popularity the Jews most likely feared for power that they would lose it as the masses only became greater and greater.
Jesus was a descendant of David I dont understand your point here honestly.

 

[ibetrippin07]

No actually your wrong, John’s task was not become a disciple he was there to clear they way for the Jesus, announce he’s coming! John was not to become one of the chosen apostles, he had a specific purpose that god wanted him to carry out.

The church is not a structure? then why does he appoint 12 apostles in the first place? why have they been commanded to preach the good news? why does he promise that he will never leave his church? Yes Jesus is the rock but he has passed this authority onto peter here on earth! Hence why he said “to you i hand the keys…”

Jesus told peter that but you don’t think it has anything to do with a system of a physical church? are you questioning what jesus was saying? hmmmm interesting. Unfortunately for you, there many bible passages and thousands of early church father quotes that support the primacy of peter and papal succession.

The church is the people of Christ. your the church and Im the church.
sure put words in my mouth like “oh hes questioning Jesus”. NO get real man. Im saying your misinterpreting this scripture and as Tertullian put it best…
“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).”

 

[ibetrippin07]

I hope you all will be able to come tommorow/ maybe tonight if i get a chance to get away to here, to continue this topic as i feel its the most important one to discuss regardless of your stance on it.
Thank you all and God bless
bbl

 

[YADA]

Peter is not the first actually, its John the Baptist. I suppose if you want to be technical you can say Peter is the first but also is his brother.
2nd the church is not a structure and the rock is clearly Christ. so im not really sure why you cited that one. The church has stood against the gates of hell many times.
and thats nice that Jesus told that to peter but honestly I dont think that has anything to do with a succession system of a physical church…

And this "honestly I dont think" is probably part of the problem … you have made yourself the arbitor of what various passages mean … you interpret them [or regurgitate the interpretation of another] and by so doing have made yourself into a ‘pope’ role … becuase you do not believe that the church had structure - it ergo cannot … even though it clearly does …

Let me ask you … why did the early church have to develop the role of a deacon to assist the bishops in the care of widows and orphans? …

Why did Paul need to travel to Jerusalem and meet with Peter in order to have his ministry accepted by the Christian communities to which he was preaching?

Why does Paul instruct on what various roles are and whoo should be chosen [or not] to fill them? …

Why write any of the ‘biblical’ letters correcting abuses? … especially if everyone is free to “interpret” the Christian faith as they personnaly choose?

Why does Paul write to the 'church that resides in Corinth [for example] and not to the Corinthian Church? What is the difference?

How is the meaning changed if I write:

Dear Corinthian Church …

or Dear Church that resides in Corinth …

I suggest that they are very different in composition …

So then … As the church grows and expands [in accord with Jesus’ command] thru the ages- you see no need for any organization … even witht he evidence of the results of the protestant reformation and the confusion of beliefs and Christian practice? … this is something I find so hard to fathom …

 

[Sellers1]

I hope you all will be able to come tommorow/ maybe tonight if i get a chance to get away to here, to continue this topic as i feel its the most important one to discuss regardless of your stance on it.
Thank you all and God bless
bbl

The succession of Peter being all of the Catholic popes t date is very problematic to me for the simple reason that the Bible doesn’t support the notion as the Catholic church has chosen to define it.

First of all, Jesus was the stone that the builders rejected and ultimately became the Cornerstone. The Church is founded upon Christ with Peter being given a leadership role. Being given the keys to the Kingdom is not being put in charge of creating and inventing truths.

Secondly, all of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose. This is shown throughout the Book of Acts.

 

[Louie1983]

The church is the people of Christ. your the church and Im the church.
sure put words in my mouth like “oh hes questioning Jesus”. NO get real man. Im saying your misinterpreting this scripture and as Tertullian put it best…
“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).”

Touched a nerve have i? maybe because i’m close to the truth.

So 2000 years of church teaching and tradition has been refuted by this weak hollow paragraph you quoted above? These same early church fathers who who were taught by the apostles themselves are wrong?

If Jesus did not want to build his church on Peter then explain:

1, Why did he change his name from simon to peter? (kepha - which means large rock) This is a pretty significant thing Jesus is doing if all he is not making Peter head of his church here on earth.

2, Change his status by saying “to you i give the kingdom of the keys of heaven”

3, Told him to " feed my sheep".

Here are some quotes below from early church fathers who supported the primacy and successors of Peter. Remember also that the papacy was not seriously challenged until 1500 years later when the reformation happened.

• “Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
• “The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
• “After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).
• “For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

 

[ibetrippin07]

And this "honestly I dont think" is probably part of the problem … you have made yourself the arbitor of what various passages mean … you interpret them [or regurgitate the interpretation of another] and by so doing have made yourself into a ‘pope’ role … becuase you do not believe that the church had structure - it ergo cannot … even though it clearly does …

Let me ask you … why did the early church have to develop the role of a deacon to assist the bishops in the care of widows and orphans? …

Why did Paul need to travel to Jerusalem and meet with Peter in order to have his ministry accepted by the Christian communities to which he was preaching?

Why does Paul instruct on what various roles are and whoo should be chosen [or not] to fill them? …

Why write any of the ‘biblical’ letters correcting abuses? … especially if everyone is free to “interpret” the Christian faith as they personnaly choose?

Why does Paul write to the 'church that resides in Corinth [for example] and not to the Corinthian Church? What is the difference?

How is the meaning changed if I write:

Dear Corinthian Church …

or Dear Church that resides in Corinth …

I suggest that they are very different in composition …

So then … As the church grows and expands [in accord with Jesus’ command] thru the ages- you see no need for any organization … even witht he evidence of the results of the protestant reformation and the confusion of beliefs and Christian practice? … this is something I find so hard to fathom …

I couldnt let this go lollllllllllllll
your good at taking things even my own words out of context… wow nit pick!
Tertullian is also known as the “Father of Latin Christianity” just fyi
You must have a hard time swallowing Ephesians 2:20
Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Ok clearly and let me know if im the only one that thinks this or…? but it seems to me that the major dif between the Catholics and protestants is clearly Peter and his keys to the kingdom which i would argue has been horribly taken out of context and personally would go as far to say Peter never intentioned any succession of a “seat” also that there are no other scriptures you can dig up to support that idea.
your thoughts?

Gabriel of 12;

**Jesus **while ministering **on earth **gave Peter singulary the Keys to the Kingdom of God;, then from his resurrection state commanded Peter singularly to feed and tend his flock;

Now which part of Jesus Words from the bible you reject or dont believe?

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

John 21:14
7 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead.
15
8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

 

[Louie1983]

The succession of Peter being all of the Catholic popes t date is very problematic to me for the simple reason that the Bible doesn’t support the notion as the Catholic church has chosen to define it.

**Can you show me where in the bible it says it must be written there to be true? **

First of all, Jesus was the stone that the builders rejected and ultimately became the Cornerstone. The Church is founded upon Christ with Peter being given a leadership role. Being given the keys to the Kingdom is not being put in charge of creating and inventing truths.

We agree here, peter and the church do not create truths but reveal it through guidance of Christ himself. Christ said of his church "the gates of hell will not prevail against it"

Secondly, all of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose. This is shown throughout the Book of Acts.

Correct but only one was handed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that was peter. Only was chosen to govern his church here on earth, that was Peter. Jesus only said to Peter “feed my sheep”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The succession of Peter being all of the Catholic popes t date is very problematic to me for the simple reason that the Bible doesn’t support the notion as the Catholic church has chosen to define it.

First of all, Jesus was the stone that the builders rejected and ultimately became the Cornerstone. The Church is founded upon Christ with Peter being given a leadership role. Being given the keys to the Kingdom is not being put in charge of creating and inventing truths.

Secondly, all of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose. This is shown throughout the Book of Acts.

Gabriel of 12;

Interesting, yet the first three Popes are named in the New Testament, and the first 30 Popes were martyred for the Christian faith you take for granted.

 

[SemperReformada]

Gabriel of 12;

**Jesus **while ministering **on earth **gave Peter singulary the Keys to the Kingdom of God;, then from his resurrection state commanded Peter singularly to feed and tend his flock;

When exactly did Peter receive the keys?