Protestant interpretations...

[JohnnyBeth]

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).

“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).

Oscar Cullmann (25 February 1902, Strasbourg - 16 January 1999, Chamonix) was a Christian theologian in the Lutheran tradition. He is best known for his work in the ecumenical movement, being in part responsible for the establishment of dialogue between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions. (wikipedia)
He would be kicked right out of fundemental evangelical circles and rightly so. Luther would proably puke and say vile things about him…

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).
Richard Thomas France is a New Testament scholar and Anglican Rector. He was Principal of Wycliffe Hall Oxford from 1989 to 1995. He has also worked for the London School of Theology. He is as Fundamental that Catholic order that wishes to ordain women. You are pretty duplicitous as I see it; so I have to check everything you write and I’m glad I do. Maybe you are just confused; God help ya friend.

Even with that; not of the door keeper; how silly.

Try Wyciffe, MacArthur, Stott, Spurgeon, Wiersbe etc

 

[JohnnyBeth]

So you’re comfortable saying that the Church is the “pillar and support of the truth” instead? How does that help you?

The Bible points to the Church and not itself. Go figure.

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 (King James Version)
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

(Where is the foundation of a building? In the ground?)

1 Timothy 3:15 (New American Bible)
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

What is it protecting and supporting, the truth, what is the truth, the Scriopture and narrower, the gospel. Also for the equipping of the saints for every good work via the scriptures; something you Church does a very poor job at as I see it. The point is that the function of the individual members of a church are to protect the truth and build and edify people in the Lord based on what Scripture teaches and utilizing the gifts given by god to help train and support the member, which make up the church. No the pillar and support as the Catholic Church.

 

[walker_p]

That would be a very good explanation if the information presented was factual and true, but it is not.

There are different words used for big and little rock formations in Aramaic, also. If you look at the Peshitta and compare Gospel verses translating the words petra and petros, you can clearly see the difference, which suggests Matthew 16:18 is a translation error.

However, that is a lot of work. It might be easier to see what the rest of the Scriptures claim about who is the rock:

Luk 8:13 They on the rock (petra) [are they], which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock (petra)was Christ.

Now, the RC says Peter was a man and could not be referred to as “petra” as it is the feminine form of the word. Yet, Christ Jesus, who is also male, is referred to as “petra”

Um, you are wrong. Petros and Petra mean exactly the same thing. There is not the slightest difference in meaning in the two words. But this all means nothing as Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. Jesus said to Peter: “You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my chuch.” If Jesus truly meant to downgrade Peter, as protestants like yourself try to do, then he would have used the word “evna” in Aramaic or “lithos” in Greek. Also, listing unrelated verses means nothing. This is an old protestant trick to try and avoid the truth. Jesus calls Peter rock and you are calling Jesus a liar. Yes, Jesus is a rock. So is Peter. And Abraham is called rock in the Old Testament. Nice try. The truth remains. You just don’t want to accept it. For some reason, protestants pretend to follow Jesus’ teaching, except when his clear teaching contradicts their opinions. Then they bend over backwards to try and say that Jesus, with his brilliant mind and intellect, didn’t really mean what he clearly said. He only meant what protestants want Him to have meant.

 

[Kalos]

Um, you are wrong. Petros and Petra mean exactly the same thing. There is not the slightest difference in meaning in the two words. But this all means nothing as Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. Jesus said to Peter: “You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my chuch.” If Jesus truly meant to downgrade Peter, as protestants like yourself try to do, then he would have used the word “evna” in Aramaic or “lithos” in Greek. Also, listing unrelated verses means nothing. This is an old protestant trick to try and avoid the truth. Jesus calls Peter rock and you are calling Jesus a liar. Yes, Jesus is a rock. So is Peter. And Abraham is called rock in the Old Testament. Nice try. The truth remains. You just don’t want to accept it. For some reason, protestants pretend to follow Jesus’ teaching, except when his clear teaching contradicts their opinions. Then they bend over backwards to try and say that Jesus, with his brilliant mind and intellect, didn’t really mean what he clearly said. He only meant what protestants want Him to have meant.

This thread doesn’t seem to be making much progress. We will of course never agree, but hopefully we can learn not to keep making false assumtions about our opponent.

Is the scripture so clear at this point that anyone may understand? If so, why are there so many oppinions among the CFs? I throw out a quote from Augustine as an example:

“*Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the church. For seeing that Christ is the rock(Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For thee rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therfore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged. saying, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God, will I build my Church”;that is upon Myself, the Son of the living
God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Me, not Myself upon thee.” *

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Ginger-

Since the translations that I provided are representative of the finest Protestant and Catholic scholarship available (and not twisted versions such as the New World Translation), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that these versions of the Bible are flawed.

Please present your opening argument.

Hi Randy,

Please don’t push this further; this is such a mute point. I agree that obedience is not what justifies, but the result of justification will be obedience and good works, which is the santification process that God uses to bring us into more Christ-likeness. The first act of obedience is water baptism where the new convert will identify theirself with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

I understand this is not Catholic theology; although Pope Benedict the ???, can’t recall, back in November gave a nice speech/sermon concerning Luther and faith alone, which the Pope in a roundabout way acknowledged this.

I’m starting to understand why some reject Vat II as it appears the magisterium is moving in the more liberal side of Catholic theology.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Um, you are wrong. Petros and Petra mean exactly the same thing. There is not the slightest difference in meaning in the two words. But this all means nothing as Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. Jesus said to Peter: “You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my chuch.” If Jesus truly meant to downgrade Peter, as protestants like yourself try to do, then he would have used the word “evna” in Aramaic or “lithos” in Greek. Also, listing unrelated verses means nothing. This is an old protestant trick to try and avoid the truth. Jesus calls Peter rock and you are calling Jesus a liar. Yes, Jesus is a rock. So is Peter. And Abraham is called rock in the Old Testament. Nice try. The truth remains. You just don’t want to accept it. For some reason, protestants pretend to follow Jesus’ teaching, except when his clear teaching contradicts their opinions. Then they bend over backwards to try and say that Jesus, with his brilliant mind and intellect, didn’t really mean what he clearly said. He only meant what protestants want Him to have meant.

Anoother wann-be Greek scholar.
The Bible say the foundation is laid by the prophets and apostles (both plural). The reality we saw on the day of Pentecost when they all spoke at the same time in every tongue of the crowd, then Peter spoke up and went into the first sermon. But to jump to Peterine Primacy and to later invent a papal office; hundreds of years after the cross and no where does the apostle Peter or any apostle or Jesus make or acknowledge Peter as superior to the other apostles in Kingdom matters. The Bible says Jesus is the head of the church in both heaven and earth. He needs no Vicar, the Holy Spirit is representative to convict men of their sin and bring a few to repentance. That’s the facts Jack.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Sure, but why would they want to since Protestant Bibles are incomplete?

How are they incomplete? Because they did not add, what is with error, books to the Bible. Even the Catholic church acknowledges errors although they down-play them. God’s pure word is w/o error; the Catholic versions contain uninspired books would be impossible to be from the Holy Spirit because of such error. You are already aware of this, but do not believe in His perfect standards; otherwise you would not allow compromise when it comes to the purity of the word of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please elaborate on the difference; I’ll get the popcorn and wait.

Hold off on the popcorn; this won’t take long.

How are they protected?

By God. I’ll elaborate after mopping up some of the other mess first.

Does it mean they can’t error?

As I already stated, infallibility means that the Church and the Pope individually cannot formally teach error in matters of faith and morals.

or is the error covered up? or something different?

No, Johnny. The Catholic Church has nothing to hide in its doctrinal formulations.

A synonym would be inerrant; Without error.

Okay. The Church teaches without error in its formal doctrinal declarations.

Sounds like you may be saying the Catholic church can error but not be judged for the error. Is this correct. Anyway elaborate some more.

No, this is not what the Church is saying. The Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals. The question of judging the Church for alleged errors is your understanding.

Infallible, which is what God is; is defined: Without fault or weakness; ***incapable of error or fallacy. ***Not part of His nature. Yet the definition above is not infallibility as it is rightly defined.

I believe you are mistaken. The Catholic Church is incapable of error when teaching formally in matters of faith and morals. Have I said that often enough yet?

Now, let’s examine the scriptures to see whether there is any evidence that God promised to protect the Church from error.

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong, vibrant and free from doctrinal error – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, you are guilty of using a single piece of Scripture to define an entire religious office that did not come about until several centuries after Christ died on the cross and is no where in Scripture.

I have to assume you are referring to Matthew 16:18 in support of the papacy since you do not specify. If I am wrong, let me know.

You would be mistaken if this is your belief; there are numerous passages of scripture and extensive evidence from the writings of the earliest Christians which prove the facts that A) Jesus established Peter as the head of the earthly Church, B) the early Church understood Peter’s primacy, and C) that the office of leadership first held by Peter (later called the papacy) continued after his death.

You will find the former all over the NT, but not the latter; only in Catholicism. Don’t you think that Jesus would make it crystal clear in no uncertain terms…use the grey matter. Same with the priesthood; don’t you think Jesus would have made it clear; any resemblence to the Catholic priesthood in Scripture? No. Hebrews puts any such notion to bed for good. Each member is a holy race and royal priesthood of believers with Jesus as our High Priest. That was made crystal clear wasn’t it…grey matter matters.

I have thought about this, and many of the greatest minds in history have, as well. It is my reasoned judgment that Jesus did make these things crystal clear. Of course, I also understand that the Church came before the Bible, and for this reason, the earliest Christians understood these things completely - not because they studied the scriptures but because they lived them out on a daily basis - so much so that there was no need to state the obvious in the letters that came to be known as the New Testament. This, by the way, does not mean that there is no scriptural support for the papacy; there is. But the authors were concerned about matters of concern and dispute when they wrote. Things such as the priesthood and baptism of infants were accepted by all and did not require special comment.

One brief word about Hebrews since non-Catholics love to misinterpret that particular book. In the OT, we find a tripartite priesthood, do we not? There was the high priest, the tribe of Levi, and the people of Israel as a nation of priests. The fact that all Israelites were priests did not preclude the special priesthood of the Levites or the role of the High Priest.

Similarly, in the NT, we find that Jesus is our high priest, and that all believers are members of the universal priesthood. We also find that Jesus, our high priest, established a formal priesthood which corresponded to the Levitical priesthood of the OT. This priesthood has responsibility for offering the sacrifice of the mass, hearing confession, etc. Since we know that the OT is a mere foreshadowing of the New and that the NT is a fulfillment of the Old, we should not be surprised to find that the tripartite form of the NT priesthood is superior in every respect to the Levitical priesthood.

I’ll bet you have been a professing Christian longer than Ginger and I put together; yet you do not comprehend the bible as we see it.

I have, and I do not. With good reason.

Not your fault; just the way it is.

Correct. There is no fault in my understanding of scripture more correctly. And that is just the way it is.

Happily, you may come to the same understanding that I have. I encourage you to read as many books by Catholic authors as you can.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Hold off on the popcorn; this won’t take long.

By God. I’ll elaborate after mopping up some of the other mess first.

As I already stated, infallibility means that the Church and the Pope individually cannot formally teach error in matters of faith and morals.

No, Johnny. The Catholic Church has nothing to hide in its doctrinal formulations.

Okay. The Church teaches without error in its formal doctrinal declarations.

No, this is not what the Church is saying. The Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals. The question of judging the Church for alleged errors is your understanding.

I believe you are mistaken. The Catholic Church is incapable of error when teaching formally in matters of faith and morals. Have I said that often enough yet?

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong, vibrant and free from doctrinal error – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Randy you have a skewed concept of what the church is; which is the underlying problem with every single verse you just quoted. The writers or Holy Spirit is speaking to individuals, not a magisterium. It should be obvious to any reasonable Christian the the Church is built on the gospel, which is Christ. No Peter could hold this together; he had a hard enough time keeping himself together and no disrespect to Peter; I love him as a brother in Christ. You have turned what is meant for the body of individuals to some central Church authority, which has erred many times; they just blame it on folks like you when it is convenient. Just do a thorough study of your saints you pray to; they can’t wipe them away without admitting error; yet a detailed study shows a good portion are based on myth or legend. Rather than admitting they made a mistake in calling a saint that does not exist and remove it; they continue to publish the names and the myths and the legends. If you were to study greek and roman mythology you would find quite a few saints that really reseemble Roman saints. The question is why? Do you know when must of the praying to the saints originates? Anyway I want to avoid Catholic bashing it makes no sense and helps no one and is not Christlike. I believe it is worth pointing out that it.

Just like you stated earlier that Catholics can read a Protestant Bible; yes they can and be damned by the church for it; since it is not Catholic approved. I assume you are ignorant of this fact or do not believe what your church teaches or has the authority to damn their own for reading a Protestant Bible, which puts you with the majority of Catholics that pick and chose what they like and disregard what they do not like concerning the teachings of the magisterium. Catholics are not the only one guilty of picking and choosing; many Protestant or non-Catholic people pick and choose what they will adhere to concerning the word of God; we see it on TV all the time. So all kinds of people are guilty of this. The reason is simple for all of this. God only dwells in the few or the remnant; most religious people, not matter the Christian religion are not known by God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy you have a skewed concept of what the church is; which is the underlying problem with every single verse you just quoted. The writers or Holy Spirit is speaking to individuals, not a magisterium. It should be obvious to any reasonable Christian the the Church is built on the gospel, which is Christ. No Peter could hold this together; he had a hard enough time keeping himself together and no disrespect to Peter; I love him as a brother in Christ. You have turned what is meant for the body of individuals to some central Church authority, which has erred many times; they just blame it on folks like you when it is convenient. Just do a thorough study of your saints you pray to; they can’t wipe them away without admitting error; yet a detailed study shows a good portion are based on myth or legend. Rather than admitting they made a mistake in calling a saint that does not exist and remove it; they continue to publish the names and the myths and the legends. If you were to study greek and roman mythology you would find quite a few saints that really reseemble Roman saints. The question is why? Do you know when must of the praying to the saints originates? Anyway I want to avoid Catholic bashing it makes no sense and helps no one and is not Christlike. I believe it is worth pointing out that it.

Just like you stated earlier that Catholics can read a Protestant Bible; yes they can and be damned by the church for it; since it is not Catholic approved. I assume you are ignorant of this fact or do not believe what your church teaches or has the authority to damn their own for reading a Protestant Bible, which puts you with the majority of Catholics that pick and chose what they like and disregard what they do not like concerning the teachings of the magisterium. Catholics are not the only one guilty of picking and choosing; many Protestant or non-Catholic people pick and choose what they will adhere to concerning the word of God; we see it on TV all the time. So all kinds of people are guilty of this. The reason is simple for all of this. God only dwells in the few or the remnant; most religious people, not matter the Christian religion are not known by God.

Wow.

I just gave you nearly a dozen verses to support the infallibility of the Church, and instead of interacting with those verses, you go off on another rant.

How do you expect to learn anything when you don’t actually listen to what anyone else has to say?

Whatever. I’ll deal with the above in a separate post.

I want this to stand alone.

Why don’t you actually interact with the verses I presented, JB?

Is it because you have nothing to say in response?

 

[JohnnyBeth]

I have to assume you are referring to Matthew 16:18 in support of the papacy since you do not specify. If I am wrong, let me know.

You would be mistaken if this is your belief; there are numerous passages of scripture and extensive evidence from the writings of the earliest Christians which prove the facts that A) Jesus established Peter as the head of the earthly Church, B) the early Church understood Peter’s primacy, and C) that the office of leadership first held by Peter (later called the papacy) continued after his death.

If there were numerous passages, we would not be debating this; so that is untrue. No efc’s understood the papal authority, which is Peterine Primacy as Catholics see it. The efc’s recognized Christ as the head and Scripture as the authority. All you have to do is look the the evolution of the papacy.

I have thought about this, and many of the greatest minds in history have, as well. It is my reasoned judgment that Jesus did make these things crystal clear. Of course, I also understand that the Church came before the Bible, and for this reason, the earliest Christians understood these things completely because they lived them out on a daily basis - so much so that there was no need to state the obvious in the letters that came to be known as the New Testament. This, by the way, does not mean that there is no scriptural support for the papacy; there is. But the authors were concerned about matters of concern and dispute when they wrote. Things such as the priesthood and baptism of infants were accepted by all and did not require special comment.

Infant baptism was disputed by the ecf’s, no unity at that time just as there is at this time. Priesthood was never taught by the ecf’s; and is not in Scripture as you claim. Was there any room for doubt about the sacraficial priesthood in the OT? No room for any doubt. But the resemblance of the Catholic priesthood is not remotely described by any of the writers of the NT.

One brief word about Hebrews since non-Catholics love to misinterpret that particular book. In the OT, we find a tripartite priesthood, do we not? There was the high priest, the tribe of Levi, and the people of Israel as a nation of priests. The fact that all Israelites were priests did not preclude the special priesthood of the Levites or the role of the High Priest.

You interpret this incorrectly because it was conditional upon them upholding their agreement, which they obviously did not. If they had, then you would be absolutely correct.

Similarly, in the NT, we find that Jesus is our high priest, and that all believers are members of the universal priesthood. We also find that Jesus, our high priest, established a formal priesthood which corresponded to the Levitical priesthood of the OT. This priesthood has responsibility for offering the sacrifice of the mass, hearing confession, etc. Since we know that the OT is a mere foreshadowing of the New and that the NT is a fulfillment of the Old, we should not be surprised to find that the tripartite form of the NT priesthood is superior in every respect to the Levitical priesthood.

You are mistaken when you stated that all believers are members of a universal priesthood; the members are the royal priesthood, with Jesus as the High Priest. Where does Jesus establish a priesthood remotely similar to the Levitical priesthood? Hebrews 7,8 and 9 extinquish the Levitical sacrifical priesthood and Jesus established through the New Covenant a priesthood of all believers.

Have you ever noticed how many time the Bible makes reference to Jesus “sitting at the right hand of the Father”? Do you understand the significance and importance of this in relation to the Levitical priests? The answer actual rebukes the Eucharist as celebrated by Catholics.

I have, and I do not. With good reason.

Correct. There is no fault in my understanding of scripture more correctly. And that is just the way it is.

Happily, you may come to the same understanding that I have. I encourage you to read as many books by Catholic authors as you can.

You say you know the Scripture and testify before God in that regard; that’s okay God knows me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy you have a skewed concept of what the church is; which is the underlying problem with every single verse you just quoted.

My understanding of what the Church is based upon scripture and history. Jesus said he would build ONE Church upon Peter, the Rock, and that Church still exists. It is the Catholic Church, and even a passing review of history and the writings of the earliest Christians reveals this to be true.

What is not true is the Protestant novelty that the Church is an invisible, spritual collection of all believers regardless of doctrine or creed. This construct is a theological necessity because of the continuing fragmentation of Protestantism.

The writers or Holy Spirit is speaking to individuals, not a magisterium. It should be obvious to any reasonable Christian the the Church is built on the gospel, which is Christ.

The Holy Spirit may speak to individual believers, but Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church (not individual believers) into all truth. If your idea were correct, then we would not see the tragic situation of one group of Protestants teaching regenerative infant baptism as truth while another group of Protestants denying this. Both groups claim to be following the Bible Alone and both claim to be led by the Spirit, yet they hold conflicting and contradictory positions. Which of these is correct?

Does the Holy Spirit lead Methodists to one truth and Baptists to another? Is one group simply in error about what the Bible teaches? Well, does that not suggest that the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth does not apply to all groups and all individuals equally? The state of Protestantism testifies against this Protestant interpretation.

No Peter could hold this together; he had a hard enough time keeping himself together and no disrespect to Peter; I love him as a brother in Christ.

Amen! Peter could not do this. That, my friend, is the whole point. The Catholic Church is one and only Church established by Jesus Christ; all the rest are movements of mere men. Jesus has held the Catholic Church together for 2,000 years while empires, kingdoms and nations have come and gone. Do you begin to see it now, JB? The Catholic Church is a human institution of divine origin. God is with her.

You have turned what is meant for the body of individuals to some central Church authority, which has erred many times; they just blame it on folks like you when it is convenient.

Not I. As for erring many times, please document your vague assertion. I grow weary of empty rhetoric.

Just do a thorough study of your saints you pray to; they can’t wipe them away without admitting error; yet a detailed study shows a good portion are based on myth or legend. Rather than admitting they made a mistake in calling a saint that does not exist and remove it; they continue to publish the names and the myths and the legends. If you were to study greek and roman mythology you would find quite a few saints that really reseemble Roman saints. The question is why? Do you know when must of the praying to the saints originates? Anyway I want to avoid Catholic bashing it makes no sense and helps no one and is not Christlike. I believe it is worth pointing out that it.

We could discuss the saints in another thread if you like (I suspect you really don’t - it’s far more comforting to you to continue to believe falsehoods. Hearing the truth makes you very uncomfortable…what if the Catholics are……right?)

Just like you stated earlier that Catholics can read a Protestant Bible; yes they can and be damned by the church for it; since it is not Catholic approved. I assume you are ignorant of this fact or do not believe what your church teaches or has the authority to damn their own for reading a Protestant Bible, which puts you with the majority of Catholics that pick and chose what they like and disregard what they do not like concerning the teachings of the magisterium.

Please go to the Vatican website and provide documentation of this prohibition. Until you are able to do so, this is empty rhetoric.

Catholics are not the only one guilty of picking and choosing; many Protestant or non-Catholic people pick and choose what they will adhere to concerning the word of God; we see it on TV all the time. So all kinds of people are guilty of this. The reason is simple for all of this. God only dwells in the few or the remnant; most religious people, not matter the Christian religion are not known by God.

An interesting point which I will address this way: Are you aware of the fact that EVERY Protestant denomination taught that contraception is a sin prior to 1930?

Then, beginning with the Anglicans who approved the use of contraception at the Lambeth Conference in 1930, EVERY Protestant denomination has caved in to pressure from their memberships to allow the use of contraceptives.

Here is my question concerning “picking and choosing”:

Were the Protestants teaching error prior to 1930 when they taught that contraception is sinful or are they teaching error now that they have changed their doctrine in order to satisfy the demands of those who insisted upon it?

Which option do you pick and choose, JB?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If there were numerous passages, we would not be debating this; so that is untrue. No efc’s understood the papal authority, which is Peterine Primacy as Catholics see it. The efc’s recognized Christ as the head and Scripture as the authority. All you have to do is look the the evolution of the papacy.

Infant baptism was disputed by the ecf’s, no unity at that time just as there is at this time. Priesthood was never taught by the ecf’s; and is not in Scripture as you claim. Was there any room for doubt about the sacraficial priesthood in the OT? No room for any doubt. But the resemblance of the Catholic priesthood is not remotely described by any of the writers of the NT.

You interpret this incorrectly because it was conditional upon them upholding their agreement, which they obviously did not. If they had, then you would be absolutely correct.

You are mistaken when you stated that all believers are members of a universal priesthood; the members are the royal priesthood, with Jesus as the High Priest. Where does Jesus establish a priesthood remotely similar to the Levitical priesthood? Hebrews 7,8 and 9 extinquish the Levitical sacrifical priesthood and Jesus established through the New Covenant a priesthood of all believers.

Have you ever noticed how many time the Bible makes reference to Jesus “sitting at the right hand of the Father”? Do you understand the significance and importance of this in relation to the Levitical priests? The answer actual rebukes the Eucharist as celebrated by Catholics.

You say you know the Scripture and testify before God in that regard; that’s okay God knows me.

Im heading out for a few hours.

I will address this post later today.

You can bet on it.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this:

Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Enjoy!

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Wow.

I just gave you nearly a dozen verses to support the infallibility of the Church, and instead of interacting with those verses, you go off on another rant.

How do you expect to learn anything when you don’t actually listen to what anyone else has to say?

Whatever. I’ll deal with the above in a separate post.

I want this to stand alone.

Why don’t you actually interact with the verses I presented, JB?

Is it because you have nothing to say in response?

Why would I repeat every verse you stated and tell you this refers to each indiviual member, when I said it above. I hit the root issue, which is your misunderstanding of the Biblical church as set aprt from the Catholic magisterium church. So to say i disregarded what you stated is not true. I see and acknowledge you spent some valuable time in your presentation, which is actually refreshing to see. You are obviously organized in your thoughts and reflect this in your posts in an easy to follow manner, which is very nice as I see it.

Please forgive me for unintentional offending you…my apologies.

JB

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

The you is in the 2nd person sigular; the [SIGN]object is the"keys"; not Peter[/SIGN]. Keys can be either plural or singular depending on the context. Jesus was talking to all the disciples, then focused on Peter and his confession, then turns to all the apostles as verse 20 clearly indicates. “I will give each of you a key to the Kingdom” would be the proper and gramatical use of the Greek. We can see on the day of Pentacost this was true and what does the key represent; the authority from heave to open or shut the door to the Kingdon via the acceptance or rejection of the gospel. In fact all have the key to the Kingdom that are in Christ. Most people do not agree with that, but it makes gramattical sense and it is what we actually know to be true. Doesn’t Matt 18 demonstrate that the loose & bind was told to a crowd while Jesus was preaching. The similarities to what He said, some verbatium, to the sermon on the mount in chapter 5 of Matthew. Jesus probaly said the same things to different crowds all the time. He doesn’t need a different message nor new material.

You have Pope because he came along centuries after the formation of the churchbased on a passage(s) taken out of context to fit a theology; at least as history shows and I and many others see it.

Oh its grammar time Okay lets break down the sentence. This was my specialty in school

Subject. what is Jesus taking about The Keys correct. subject Keys.
Person who was Jesus talking to YOU who is You? Peter is You. He states it YOU are PETER.
What is the action going on? Verb! Jesus is giving the Keys to Peter.

Now we have a complete sentence. Jesus is giving the keys to Peter.

Now you said the You is the second Person. Are you saying the Keys are the second person? Because it sure sounds like it?

Then you go on to state Jesus was talking to all the apostles but focused on Peter? WHY? SO you are saying he looked at Peter focused on Peter said YOU ARE PETER but was really talking to all of the Apostles. Come On. Try again on that one.

Now you said the Keys stand only for authority? What good is Peters authority going to do for us? You want to try again? Because Jesus gave all of the Apostles authority. When he said what My Father has given me I now give to You, And then he Breathed on THEM! THEM, Why did he not said to THEM here are the keys then? But he did give THEM all the authority to forgive sin, etc. Power of all of the Sacraments. YEs thats authority I agree.

BUt the KEYS? You really do not have a clue what the keys are do you? Try Try again. Please Randy don’t tell him what the keys of the kingdom means. Lets let this be his job. Figure it out, and come back and tell us!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Ginger-

I provided you with at least five Protestant translations.

This is not simply a “Catholic” mistranslation.

[SIGN]Since you do not attend a church and have no denominational affiliation[/SIGN], are you unaware of the fact that Bible translations are considered to be “Protestant” or “Catholic” depending upon the make-up of the team that does the work?

So, when I quote Protestant scholars and translations, it it evidence that the interpretation that I have given is universally accepted. If it were not so, then you can bet that the Protestants would have endeavored to minimize the Catholic overtones of the passages in question.

Make sense?

Ginger, If this is correct and you do not attend a Church how do you receive the sacrament of Communion?

You remember that one don’t you? Let me show it to you

Jn 6:51 54 56 Jesus said I am the living bread that came down for heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live for ever he who eats my flesh an drinks my blood has eternal life and abides in me, and I in him!

Tell me Ginger, I can’t wait to hear you try to explain that one away?

 

[JohnnyBeth]

My understanding of what the Church is based upon scripture and history. Jesus said he would build ONE Church upon Peter, the Rock, and that Church still exists. .

It can’t be based on Scripture; the idea of papal authority evoloved over time. It can’t be based on Scripture for Jesus said quote"I will build my Church".
1Co 3:11
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Who is doing the laying? In a sense it is both Jesus and the prophets and the apostles and all other Christians; we are that intimate with Christ.

Eph.2:14-22So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone,} in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

This one passage pulls together that intimacy. To use Matthew 16 to make Peter the sole foundation layer, which is what your church is built on; just doesn’t accord with the teaching of the apostles, writers and Jesus.

Here Paul makes the same claim, but it it just Paul? Of course not, just like it is not just Peter.
1Co 3:10According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
I hope you see the point.

What is not true is the Protestant novelty that the Church is an invisible, spritual collection of all believers regardless of doctrine or creed. This construct is a theological necessity because of the continuing fragmentation of Protestantism.

I don’t know anyone who believes a church is invisible in the sensce that we all go to a local church; hopefully to worship God. But the true Bride of Chrisrt is yet to be revealed, which is the true and unity into one body church of God. Revelation 2 & 3 makes this clear that the visible is the individual local gatherings of “tares and wheat”. The Catholic Church has no monopoly on this.

The Holy Spirit may speak to individual believers, but Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church (not individual believers) into all truth. If your idea were correct, then we would not see the tragic situation of one group of Protestants teaching regenerative infant baptism as truth while another group of Protestants denying this. Both groups claim to be following the Bible Alone and both claim to be led by the Spirit, yet they hold conflicting and contradictory positions. Which of these is correct?

Actually all the different misinterpretations go to show that there only exists a remnant. True believers are like minded when it comes to doctrinal issues of salvation and the gospel because they posses the residential truth Teacher. Only those that God knows, those He has made His temple, those He has called are the only ones that can possibly understand the fullness of the gospel and the Scripture. Have you ever read the parable of the soils? It is not the seed or the sower that is the problem; it is the soil or the heart. Who prepares the heart to receive Jesus? So unless the heart is divinely prepared; it will never accept or understand the Holy Trinity. Where does Jesus or the writers ever spearate the individuals fro the church; never, they are the chuch. The Bible empasises that fact.

Amen! Peter could not do this. That, my friend, is the whole point. The Catholic Church is one and only Church established by Jesus Christ; so Philedelphia, Epheses, Corinth, Smyrna, Pergamum, Galatia etc were all the Roman Catholic Church?

We could discuss the saints in another thread if you like (I suspect you really don’t - it’s far more comforting to you to continue to believe falsehoods. Hearing the truth makes you very uncomfortable…what if the Catholics are……right?)

I’ll be happy to join you in a discussion on saints, but you really do not want to go down that road…but if you want to I am willing and able.

Here is my question concerning “picking and choosing”:

Were the Protestants teaching error prior to 1930 when they taught that contraception is sinful or are they teaching error now that they have changed their doctrine in order to satisfy the demands of those who insisted upon it?
Which option do you pick and choose, JB?

I would say it depends on what is defined as contraception. Some people believe the abortion and morning after pill are contraception; I would call it murder. However; no matter the method you intentionally use to avoid becoming pregnant. there is nothing in Scripture to prevent it. Scripture is very silent on the topic. there are some examples in the OT where a brother wasted his seed; but that was a violation of a law God had set down for the caringing on of the deceased lineage. God said be fruitful and multiply; does this meant those that don’t have chidren are condemned? He comanded this only a couple of times, when the population of humans was at bare minimums. This idea of using some sort of rhytum method is no different on the “intent”, which is what God would look at. The difference is the heavy burden of guilt put upon couples; especially the women.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Im heading out for a few hours.

I will address this post later today.

You can bet on it.

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this:

Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Enjoy!

I have already addressed all these versus in previous posts in this thread I believe. The keys are authority from heaven given to all the apostles, they are in relation to the power and authority to loose and bind, permit or forbid, based on accepting or rejecting the gospel message. Matt 18 extends to to all believers, this is why we are here…see great commision. Isaiah 22:22 is clearly speaking of Jesus; see verse 20 and notice that I will appoint “I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,” Eliakim = “God raises” & Hilkiah = “my portion is Jehovah” → converseley to ignore rev 3:7 is a mistake. Also, notice their is one key, which is why Matt 16 if translated properly and still hold true to the Greek gramattical structure and the context of the audience Jesus was speaking and reality of what we see and know about Scripture. The text could and should in my opinon read “I will give each of you a key” to the Kingdom. This would allow for the 2nd person sigular of the word “you” and the plural of keys becuase it would be equivilent to having a group of employees given their own key to open up a single door, which is the door of the Kingdom which correspondes with the loosing & binding concept and also was shown on the day of Pentecost that all the discipes spoke at the same time in each persons tongue, then Peter spoke. You are forced to ignore these facts and common sense; else you would have to deny Catholicism. The bride is yet to be revealed and is the true spitiual body known as the church. The visible church contains tares and wheat and therefore in not the bride in its Biblical use of the word.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Oh its grammar time Okay lets break down the sentence. This was my specialty in school

Subject. what is Jesus taking about The Keys correct. subject Keys.
Person who was Jesus talking to YOU who is You? Peter is You. He states it YOU are PETER.
What is the action going on? Verb! Jesus is giving the Keys to Peter.

Now we have a complete sentence. Jesus is giving the keys to Peter.

Now you said the You is the second Person. Are you saying the Keys are the second person? Because it sure sounds like it?

Then you go on to state Jesus was talking to all the apostles but focused on Peter? WHY? SO you are saying he looked at Peter focused on Peter said YOU ARE PETER but was really talking to all of the Apostles. Come On. Try again on that one.

Now you said the Keys stand only for authority? What good is Peters authority going to do for us? You want to try again? Because Jesus gave all of the Apostles authority. When he said what My Father has given me I now give to You, And then he Breathed on THEM! THEM, Why did he not said to THEM here are the keys then? But he did give THEM all the authority to forgive sin, etc. Power of all of the Sacraments. YEs thats authority I agree.

BUt the KEYS? You really do not have a clue what the keys are do you? Try Try again. Please Randy don’t tell him what the keys of the kingdom means. Lets let this be his job. Figure it out, and come back and tell us!

You must have gotten a poor grade. The you is an indefinite pronoun in the 2nd person sigular, which is must be and whenever one is speking to a group as individuals, you will see the use of 2nd peron or to a single individual. Who is the you. Well Jesus stated out speaking to all of the individual “you”, the diciples, then Peter becomes the focaus, then Jesus goes back to the group as verse 20 clearly indicates. so the you is either Peter or the group. The Keys can be singular of plural; that depends on the if there are multiple doors or a single door. In this case it is a single door to heaven, which menas we have here a handful of the same key. So keeping with the gramattical structure, the context of the audience and what we know to be true as the events unfolded at the day of Pentecost and following. The passage can and should render “I will give each of you a key” to the Kingdom of heaven. This is exactly what we see on the day of Penecost as all of the disciples spoke simutaneously in each native tongue, then Peter spoke up and went into his sermon. Other apostles, Paul in particular, called himself the master builder of the foundation. Jesus is called the foundation. Matthew 18 extends the concept to all believers to loose and bind, because the authority comes from heaven, the key represents the power in the message or the gospel and can be articulated by any true Christians and the acceptance or rejection of the gospel will determine if the messenger and loose, permit entrance or bind, forbid entrance into the Kingdom and all of heaven is in agreement because the authority and power is in heaven.

This should also clarify as to why the key in a singular key as used in used supporting passages in Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7.

The Greek word for “key” is kleis (Noun Feminine) 1. “a key”

If you ever look at commentaries on this; they are all over the map; no one seems to be able to put the picture of the scene in their mind and tie it together with what we actual see. The next few versus the apostles begin to argue over who will be the greates; they obviously didn’t believe it was Peter and Jesus could have said “hey boys, we just talked about that a few days ago and you know I have assigned this to Peter”.