Protestant interpretations...

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rinnie said:
Hey JB you are back. Got a surprise for ya.

The keys.

Isa 22:22 It shows you how the keys are passed down. They not ONLY hold authority but Facillitate SUCCESSION. SUCCESSION passed form Peter to the current Pope today. LINKAGE UNBROKEN

Give her a read!😃

It will open alot to you. And you can see it with your own eyes. So take the blinders off and check it out.😃
Click to expand...
I’ve heard the prime minister argument, which is a cup with a hole in it; won’t hold water. A priminister is an authority and ruler of a nation. We see this as an example in many coutries, like England. Our President wuld be an equivilent analogy. Read before and after verse 22 and if you believe Isaiah is speaking of Peter, then you are “crazy” in my opinion. It is Jesus, particulalry as the Christ in Isaiah and Revelation 3:7 clears up any doubts you may have as to the truth just revealed to you.
 
rinnie said:
[SIGN][/SIGN]

Huh? You lost me there.

Now I only gave you 2 choices. You can’t have one choice and have a choice now can we?

Now maybe you misunderstood me or something? Now thats possible.

Let me say it another way. More Clear for you.

Jesus and his Church are One! You cannot separate Jesus from his Church. Jesus is alive today as he was when he walked the earth, through the Church in the Eucharist. How do we know this, many many ways. One he told Paul. Why are you persecuting ME. We all know Paul was persecuting the Church. Who are you asked Paul? I am Jesus the one you are persecuting. (might want to think about that one)

Second he told us he was sending the adcocate the HS to be with us always in the Church to lead it. Thats still God. He promised until the end of time. Well times still here, so we know the end has not come yet. And the Church is still here too!

We also know the Christ is united to the CHurch like a Bride to her groom. 2 become one.

Now just try to take Jesus Christ out of the Eucharist in the CC. It will never happen. You cannot over power the HS. Just llike you cannot Stop the HS from leading the CC the way Jesus promised.

Now we know the Church is ONE. Jesus told us that. It is Holy we know that. It is Catholic we know that . And it is Apostolic.

Jesus left us those MARKS. So we could not be fooled.

Now in order for a Church to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH it must have all of those marks. And in order to have ALL of the Apostolic Teachings it MUST have all of the 7 Sacraments.

Because the Apostles taught us all 7 Jesus left us. No More, No less.

The Pope said if you are in the Church that is one holy catholic and apostolic and has all of the 7 sacraments you can be assured you are in the right Church! You will indeed find all of these in the RCC. That I can promise you. And so can the Pope.

Now can you say that is your Church? If it is, and has all of the above. You are good to go!

Now I do not NEED the bible. But I read it, and I love it. But you could burn every single bible in the world and guess what. We would still have the RCC.

Its been here long before the bible. LONG BEFORE. So if I need assistance I do not have to consult the bible. The bible actually tells me not to do that also. It says go to the CHurch!👍

You see the RCC is even more powerful then the bible. The bible is only a book, with very powerful words granted. But I do not need the bible to be fed those words. But I do use it, and believe every word is the word of God and love to read it. But I can receive the Sacraments, the word of God oral and written scripture without that Book. But I cannot receive it without the Church. The bible cannot Baptise me, The bible cannot give me the body and blood of Christ. Reading the bible cannot Marry me. ETC. God left the CHurch and the people he APOINTED (hows that GInger)😃 to continue his work.

And the bible cannot interpret itself! Thats the biggie. Its impossible. That is why Jesus did not leave me the bible he left me the Church. Where in the bible does it say to replace the Church with the bible?
Click to expand...
Speechless! You got me. You are very confused about what the church is and how it functions in and through Jesus as individuals that collectively make up His body, His bride etc. The Bible will verify itself and again you put the Church as a higher authority over the living Word, which is God. Good luck!
 
JohnnyBeth said:
Better go back and look at the Catholic definition of infallibility; it doesn’t say they can’t teach error; it says they are “excused from any liability” of error. Big difference and quite a twist on infallibility compared to God’s definition of infallibiliy which is the inability to make error - perfection.
Click to expand...
JohnnyBeth-

Can you provide evidence in full context from Church documents to support your statement?

I ask because your understanding of infallibility is incorrect; in fact, it means exactly what you claim it doesn’t: Infallibility means that the Pope and the Catholic Church are prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

I think your mistake comes from a misreading of the defintion. The Church is immune from “liability (likelihood) to error” - not “liability of error”.

For example, if I allow my teenage son to drive my car, I am liable for any accident that he may cause; my insurance will go up.

Similarly, the Church is preserved from the likelihood of error. There is no understanding that the Church is simply not responsible for any errors that it may make.
 
Ginger2 said:
He took the quote from the NASB.

My comment was that he intentionally chose a mistranslated version to support his position.

Ginger
Click to expand...
What does Vatt II say about reading Protestant bibles; maybe nothing, but I think it says something not so good about that.???
 
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Randy_Carson said:
Of course, but does that mean that they prophesy Jesus exclusively?

Nope.

The office of Royal Steward was a fact in the David kingdom. Jesus is the heir to that throne, and He established Peter in that office.

Catch that? Office.

The men who hold the office of steward or prime minister may change, but the office remains.

That, dear Ginger, is the basis of Apostolic Succession. 👍
Click to expand...
 
JohnnyBeth said:
I’ve heard the prime minister argument, which is a cup with a hole in it; won’t hold water. A priminister is an authority and ruler of a nation. We see this as an example in many coutries, like England. Our President wuld be an equivilent analogy. Read before and after verse 22 and if you believe Isaiah is speaking of Peter, then you are “crazy” in my opinion. It is Jesus, particulalry as the Christ in Isaiah and Revelation 3:7 clears up any doubts you may have as to the truth just revealed to you.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect.

In the Davidic kingdom, the royal steward wore a large key as a symbol of his authority to act on behalf of the king in the king’s absence. The position of steward or “prime minister” was an enduring office that survived the death or change of the man who held the office.

Since Jesus has claimed the throne of His father David, He has also named his steward, Peter, to whom He gave the keys.

Any Jew would have known this because it was part of their culture, but it is lost on many modern students of scripture.
 
Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright

“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

Oscar Cullman

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).

Gerhardt Meier

“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).
** The Anchor Bible Commentary**

“By conferring the power to bind and loose upon church leadership, Jesus authorizes it to interpret the Scriptures and establish norms for Christian behaviour” (vol 1)

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”
 
Randy_Carson said:
I am not a Lutheran, so there is no need for me to believe and take all of what Luther said as being true.

Curiously, modern Protestants don’t seem to pay much attention to what he said, either. 😛
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t know about modern Protestants, but I do know that Christians follow Christ and the character and attributes concerning Jesus are found in the Bible and no where else can we find a “living Word” except in the Bible. try no to follow the precepts of men; the god-man Jesus is who all need to follow to be on the right path.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Oh?

She’s already been refuted on Paul’s use of the term “father” in response to her “call no man father” argument.

I also demonstrated that she is wrong concerning the word “obey” in John 3:36.

So, what exactly are you basing you assessment of her “understanding” on? The fact that she is some flavor of Protestant and disagrees with Catholics?

Is that enough for you to determine that someone is orthodox in his or her theology?

How do you know that she is even Christian? She won’t say. Maybe she’s JW or Mormon…

Again, all you know is that she is anti-Catholic, and you give her your 👍.

What assumptions should we make from this about you? 🤷
Click to expand...
If I had to choose between believing your way of interpretation or hers; I would take hers every day of the week. She won’t add to Scripture and make giant leaps to come up with the notion of some office, priesthood, church, other Mary, other Peter, sacraments or any other thing outside of the Bible; as you would and do.

She has the jist of the “Father” thing and I think on one post you actually nailed it, but I don’t want to go back and find it and on obey, if you follow the thread, she agreed it can be translated that way and I agree it is the proper rendering, the NASB, based on the greek.
 
JohnnyBeth said:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Click to expand...
As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Lk 1:32-33). He really is the king, *not *the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

Still laughing, JohnnyBeth? 😛
 
Randy_Carson said:
JohnnyBeth-

Can you provide evidence in full context from Church documents to support your statement?

I ask because your understanding of infallibility is incorrect; in fact, it means exactly what you claim it doesn’t: Infallibility means that the Pope and the Catholic Church are prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

I think your mistake comes from a misreading of the defintion. The Church is immune from “liability (likelihood) to error” - not “liability of error”.

For example, if I allow my teenage son to drive my car, I am liable for any accident that he may cause; my insurance will go up.

Similarly, the Church is preserved from the likelihood of error. There is no understanding that the Church is simply not responsible for any errors that it may make.
Click to expand...
Randy, I wish the last statement were tru.

In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the subject will be treated under the following heads:
Code: 
I. True Meaning of Infallibility
II. Proof of the Church's Infallibility
III. Organs of Infallibility
Ecumenical Councils
The Pope
Their Mutual Relations
IV. Scope and Object of Infallibility
V. What Teaching is Infallible?
This part of it the rest you can read and discern for yourself. You can play semantics if you want, but I stand by my original comment. Makes no difference to me; God knows me.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
 
Randy_Carson said:
You are incorrect.

In the Davidic kingdom, the royal steward wore a large key as a symbol of his authority to act on behalf of the king in the king’s absence. The position of steward or “prime minister” was an enduring office that survived the death or change of the man who held the office.

Since Jesus has claimed the throne of His father David, He has also named his steward, Peter, to whom He gave the keys.

Any Jew would have known this because it was part of their culture, but it is lost on many modern students of scripture.
Click to expand...
Tha is good as well. the Jews couldn’t even recogize their messiah. Try looking at the names, there is no mistake that the tiny phrase “That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,” Look at the meaning of the names and see the truth 🙂

The see this "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,

When he opens no one will shut,

When he shuts no one will open. (Before the cross “will set”)

COMPARED TO THIS

He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens (after the cross “has the key”)

See any similarities - care to continue to deny the truth? Doesn’t matter to me; God knows me.
 
Randy_Carson said:
As the royal son of David, Christ is the owner of the key of David, but this doesn’t mean he can’t give to Peter, as his “prime minister,” the keys to his heavenly kingdom.

In the passage to which Revelation 3:7 alludes, Isaiah 22:20-23, Eliakim is made master of the palace, a post roughly equivalent to prime minister. As the king’s right-hand man, the master of the palace is given the “key of the House of David.”

Keys symbolize authority, so bestowing the key to the House of David upon Eliakim is equivalent to giving him, as the king’s duly appointed representative, authority over the kingdom.

Revelation 3:7 speaks of Jesus as the “holder of the key of David.” Some argue this means he fulfills the role Eliakim foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-23. They claim this excludes a prophetic application of this text to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19.

There’s a problem with this argument. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is master of the palace–the king isn’t. Eliakim possesses the key of the kingdom not as its owner, but as one deputed to oversee the king’s affairs. If we apply this to Christ, then we must conclude he’s not the true messianic king, merely his prime minister, the Messiah’s chief representative!

Although Jesus is called the “holder of the key of David” in Revelation 3:7, he doesn’t hold it as Eliakim did. As the son of David, Jesus is the heir to the throne of his ancestor (Lk 1:32-33). He really is the king, *not *the master of the king’s palace, as was Eliakim. As king, Jesus is free to bestow the keys of his kingdom on whomever he wishes–without losing the authority those keys represent.

It’s the Catholic position that this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 16:18-19. Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah, which means, among other things, acknowledging his kingship. Christ then shows his kingly authority by bestowing on Peter something only the king could give–the keys of the kingdom of heaven–thus making Peter the messianic equivalent of Eliakim.

Still laughing, JohnnyBeth? 😛
Click to expand...
My belly is hurting; this is so obvious the Jesus Christ…👍
 
rinnie said:
[SIGN][/SIGN]

Oh Ginger by all means. Please supply me with that scripture. Please!
Click to expand...
Acts 19
Paul in Ephesus
1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples
2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
This is a good place to point out there are two Baptisms
4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Here is where you need to stop and reflect on the order of events and the things Paul said
6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

When the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit, it is also speaking of two things: The person of the Holy Spirit who indwells us at the time of our Baptism, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit which could only be passed on by the Apostles.

Gifts today are not the same as then as the purpose was fulfilled by the end of the Apostolic age.

I know that is a lot for you to absorb in such a short time. But please reflect on these Scriptures and others before you simply dismiss them and interpret them the way you already believe.

Ginger
 
JohnnyBeth said:
Randy, I wish the last statement were tru.

In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the subject will be treated under the following heads:

I. True Meaning of Infallibility
II. Proof of the Church’s Infallibility
III. Organs of Infallibility
Ecumenical Councils
The Pope
Their Mutual Relations
IV. Scope and Object of Infallibility
V. What Teaching is Infallible?

This part of it the rest you can read and discern for yourself. You can play semantics if you want, but I stand by my original comment. Makes no difference to me; God knows me.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks, but this is the very article I checked before responding above.

As I said, you misunderstand what you read.

Infallibility means that the Church is protected from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself.

Liability to error and liability for error are very different things.
 
JohnnyBeth said:
Tha is good as well. the Jews couldn’t even recogize their messiah. Try looking at the names, there is no mistake that the tiny phrase “That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,” Look at the meaning of the names and see the truth 🙂

The see this "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,

When he opens no one will shut,

When he shuts no one will open. (Before the cross “will set”)

COMPARED TO THIS

He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens (after the cross “has the key”)

See any similarities - care to continue to deny the truth? Doesn’t matter to me; God knows me.
Click to expand...
No wonder you are so supportive of Ginger…you both ignore the information presented to you in favor of your own theological presuppositions.
 
JohnnyBeth said:
My belly is hurting; this is so obvious the Jesus Christ…
Click to expand...
If it’s so obvious, JB, then how come these Protestant scholars refute you?

**W.F. Albright

**“In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.” (ibid.)

Oscar Cullman

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).
 
Randy_Carson said:
Ginger-

Once again you blame the translation, but the evidence is against you. Maybe the problem is not with the scriptures but with your misinterpretation of them. See for yourself…

1 Corinthians 4:14-15 (King James Version)
14I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
15For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

1 Corinthians 4:14-15 (American Standard Version)
14 I write not these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus** I begat you through the gospel.**
Click to expand...
Well, I see there is more than one that has been mistranslated, but it is you who has a "problem … with …misinterpretation of the Scriptures.

BEGOTTEN:
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone

Ginger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top