B
Bwsherman
Guest
I hate to feed the bear, as it were, but what is the point?
- Status
M
mercygate
Guest
Uh-huh.
po18guy
Well-known member
One point;: when you either possess, or have found the truth, open-mindedness is foolish. The truth does not debate with error on equal footing. To do so devalues the truth. Every question our friend has was centuries ago settled. The change will occur within him/her as they think, reason, and pray over this discussion. It is a symptom of relativism to place all positions surrounding an issue on equal stature. What one sees in a well-grounded Catholic is not arrogance, it is confidence.
Christ’s peace.
M
mercygate
Guest
Who was it who said “Don’t let your mind be so open that your brains fall out.”
B
Bwsherman
Guest
I am not sure, but I do know that T.S. Elliot was once asked, “Why do we study the ancients, we know so much more then they?”, and his response was, “Exactly, and it is they that we know.”
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Unless of course you don’t consider Paul one of Christs disciples?
Who is mentioned more than Peter.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
If Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king?
B
Bwsherman
Guest
Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom, which has already been stated on the this thread, and is proved through typological exegesis. Jesus is also a ‘priest forever in the order of Melchisedech’. This title is also given to David in Ps. 109:4. So Jesus is both King and Priest as were David and Melchisedech.
M
mercygate
Guest
But not one of the Twelve.Unless of course you don’t consider Paul one of Christs disciples?
Who is mentioned more than Peter.
po18guy
Well-known member
Marty, how have you been? We are in the Year of Saint Paul, so don’t bug us!Unless of course you don’t consider Paul one of Christs disciples?
Who is mentioned more than Peter.
Saint Paul, being literate, wrote so much more, and was not directly involved in the daily administration of the early church. The Lord had given him a role as a great evangelist. But, do not grieve Peter, as he was the Lord’s choice to found the church. Paul was the Lord’s own choice to spread the Gospel. Kinda like left and right hands. We’re both blessed.Christ’s peace…
M
mercygate
Guest
Huh? Christ is the King. “Son of David”? C’mon. You KNOW that.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I know but NOW align the ISA quote up typologically it does NOT work…
M
mercygate
Guest
It works. It is the symbol of the keys and the closing-not-opening and opening-not-closing that points to the Keys in Mt. 16. It is what the keys DO. Are you referring to verse 25?
I would look at that in a couple of different ways.
First, the prime minister’s office continues, even when the PM NEEDS to be removed.
Second, Isaiah’s context is the earthly Davidic Kingdom, not the Kingdom of Christ – David’s kingdom is a shadow; the Keys of that kingdom are a shadow of the Keys “of the kingdom of heaven” promised to Peter.
Third (getting a little “out there” hermeneutically here), just as the old Adam is replaced by the new Adam in Christ, the old kingdom with its fallible prime ministers, is replaced by the new Kingdom, where the Lord is King forever and his vicar(s) stand to serve until He comes again. OK. That may be asking the text to support more than it can. But it is consistend and Paul used the method of showing out how the “new” is the opposite or a contrary improvement upon the “old”; my speculation is not a novel way of reading the typology.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Revelation says it is Jesus whom is holding the key even right NOW
M
mercygate
Guest
Check that reference.
Mt 16:19 (KJV) I [Jesus]will give unto thee [Peter] the** keys of the kingdom of heaven**:
Rev 1:8 (KJV) I [Jesus] am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the** keys of hell and of death.**
M
Menorrah
Guest
Well, the leaves another question. So, if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 A.D., and he was in Jerusalem for the meeting at around 48 A.D., it means that he was able to travel back and forth to Jerusalem and Rome without any problem.
While Paul, a Roman citizen as well, was having trouble going to Rome. Didn’t he know that Peter was already based there? He didn’t say anything about Peter being in Rome, nor he greeted Peter in his greetings when he wrote to the Christians in Rome.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
You mean the Latin tradition of cousins? Actually no, St. Jerome invented it in 4th century: a completely celibate Holy Family agreeded with his views on sex. His rival, Helvidius, invented children of Mary to support his ideas of marriage. Up until then, the traditions only speak of them as step brothers,
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Ah, yes. Eliakim. How recent is that reinterpretation of the Vatican’s? It evidently doesn’t predate the Reformation, as the Douay Rheims states Eliakim is a type of Christ, and no mention of the papacy, which is what you would expect in an English translation aimed at proving the supremacy of Rome.
As per usual, you omitted the last verse:
25 “In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place * will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.”
How do you interpret that.*
M
mercygate
Guest
People traveled all over the Roman world. As did Paul.
How do you conclude that Paul’s desire to come to Rome was thwarted by the politics of the Empire and not by personal constraints? He was a busy guy. He wanted to go to Rome to garner support for a mission to Spain.
Little is known about how the Roman Church was organized with respect to Jewish or Gentile congregations.
We do not know why Paul did not greet Peter – other than to speculate that
- Peter was not in Rome (Protestants love this one) or
- That the epistle was written to a particular congregation (that list in chapter 16!) in which Peter was not an elder. Applying the model of a more developed church discipline and hierarchy, where ONE single bishop sits alone at the head of all the churches in a region, would be anachronistic.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
And again, there is no record of St. James seeking St. Peter’s judgement.
As for your “good article,” among other things it contradicts itself:
At one point he claims “So, what trumps what? A Council, or Rome’s teaching authority? If the Orthodox wanted to be honest about history, it is clearly Rome’s teaching authority – the very thing “Saint” Photius (being an agent of the Empire himself) denied, so as to foster Byzantine primacy through an unTraditional bid to make the P. of Constantinople “Ecumenical Patriarch,” a title which, as I recently found out, was not approved of for the P. of Constantinople until after 1453. It was a title given to him by the anti-Latin TURKS! Not by the Papacy nor by the ancient Church.” but then admits: “As for Ecumenical Patriarch, that was an out-and-out creation by the Byzantine government in the 600’s (and it was never offered to Rome, but was designed for Constantinople). Gregory the Great was the first to deny this title to the P.of C. (calling it “haughty” and “unTraditional”)”
It also makes the blunder on Acts 15. Galatians shows us that St. Peter was in Antioch, and he had to go to Jerusalem. If they needed an ex cathedra statement from Peter’s throne, they could have stayed in Antioch.
And St. James says “I judge” (emphasis James’). And the encyclical gives no top billing at all to a “pontiff.”
- Status