Response to MT's post

[MT1926]

In my view this whole doctrine about him, MT and kainosktisis, seems to hinge off of the Isaiah 22 passage you and others quote.

Nope. Never claimed the whole doctrine rests on one passage. I’m just pointing you to this passage to give you the interpretation of the keys.

Why are you trying to dig deeper into this passage then the pure and simple interpretation of the keys?

But Peter, centuries later, (and through the prophetic voice of Isaiah) would fulfill this prophecy as Eliakim did.

I never claimed this was a prophecy. Just trying to define the meaning of the keys.

Why do you think this is a prophecy?

the CC adopted Isaiah’s prophetic message here

Nope never said it’s a prophecy.

An interesting side note: The metaphor of a key upon a shoulder is actually rooted in pagan traditions. Isaiah and the Apostle John borrowed, it according to Clarke Adam’s Commentary.

There are many things the pagans did that we do as well.

I have a question for you to try and understand your view here. I will try to be specific because this is an important question.

Why would it matter if the Apostle John borrowed something rooted in pagan traditions to try and teach us something? The reason I ask is because you tend to bring up objections to scripture such as this one here when you are having difficulty working through a passage that contradicts your beliefs. I thought you believed all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So in the end wasn’t it the Holy Spirit who “borrowed” this from the pagans?

Are these (above) conclusions correct here, so far, in your view?

No. You are trying to dig deeper than necessary to try to find something that allows you to disprove the meaning of the keys.

You must know, Isaiah’s prophetic word is echoed in Rev. 3:7 about Christ alone. “… He (Christ) who is true, He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.”

Yeah I already brought that passage up. Not sure what your point here. Never said Jesus no longer holds the authority. Not sure where you are going with this.

So which is it? Is Eliakim a type of position/person here on earth called to be the papacy, or Peter? Or is Eliakim a type or parallel figure of Christ Himself, a fulfillment of Rev. 3:7?

Once again not sure why you are saying this is a prophecy. If you want to claim that Eliakim is Jesus then who is the King?

The CC created a problem (I believe) when they decided Peter’s position as Pope was to be a fulfillment of Eliakim’s new position in the house of David by the key of authority resting on his shoulder, again, a description that only Christ could fulfill based on Rev. 3:7…

Yeah straw man argument here. Never made that claim. just trying to define the keys.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

In Isaiah 22:22, Eliakim was given authority resting on his shoulder to open doors that no man could open, and to shut doors no man could shut.

So what is your point.

You admit here that Eliakim is given authority (the keys) resting on his shoulder.

AMEN. That is the only point I am trying to prove. Thank you.

Jesus, in Mt. 16, does not follow through with the same language. Interestingly as I study this, I found that Jesus’s language compliments the Isaiah 22:22 passage but does not directly parallel it.

On what basis are we to believe Jesus would need to use the exact/direct parallel of a passage for us to find any meaning in His words?

Peter is given the KEYS of the Kingdom of God but is NOT told he could “open doors that no man can open, or close doors that no man can close.

Once again what’s your point? Take a closer look at the two passages. Which one of the two gives the key holder an even greater authority?

I think someone being able to bind something on earth and have it bound in HEAVEN is a far greater authority than just opening and shutting some doors.

This special treatment meant that there are actually two heads of the Church, a concept rarely discussed in my experience on this site.

Not sure why you are seeing it this way. The fact that we have a vice-President in this country does not mean we have two heads of the country.

I believe Eliakim served only as a TYPE of Christ, meaning that his role as one who held the key of the house of David on his shoulder was limited, as verse 25 suggested, but in a spiritual sense, Christ role, unlike Eliakim went beyond the grave. Nowhere in the Isaiah analogy do we find a duel ruler-ship.

Like I already asked. If Eliakim is a type of Christ then who is the King?

Since we do not find it in scripture, where did this conflicting view come from? Certainly oral tradition cannot contradict inspired scripture. It is a quandary MT.
Be blessed!! in your coming in, and in your going out!

The only conflict I am seeing is what you have written above.

Like I’ve said from the beginning. Just using this passage to define the meaning of the keys. Which you did here…

In Isaiah 22:22, Eliakim was given authority resting on his shoulder

Thank you. That is all of the farther we need to go.

Everything else you read into the verse is the conflict that you are speaking of.

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

I never claimed this was a prophecy. Just trying to define the meaning of the keys.

Why do you think this is a prophecy?

Mt, I may have lumped you in as the primary person when in actuality kainosktisis was using this passage. my bad.

 

[tgGodsway]

Why do you think this is a prophecy?

It is prophetic because of Rev. 3:7 in it’s fulfillment.

The meaning of the keys is clear to me MT. They are metaphorical keys but it’s not rocket science. Keys unlock doors, they also lock doors. I believe these are spiritual doors to unlock or lock many things, including knowledge of the kingdom of God as we read in Luke’s account. Mt. 16 has to do with spiritual authority based on a fundamental truth that Jesus is the Christ. The key to the house of David, as others elude to, only points to Christ who alone has the authority of OPEN doors, or close them.

great grace belongs to you, MT

 

[tgGodsway]

Why would it matter if the Apostle John borrowed something rooted in pagan traditions to try and teach us something?

Relax MT. I had no objections about it. I was just intrigued with it. I realize there are many expressions found that do not necessary have a clear O.T. bases. And not everything I say is an objection. I am not some critical spirit searching for wrong. Much like President Trump, I try to only counter punch all of the blame the protestants get on this site.

 

[kainosktisis]

Sorry if I caused a problem. As MT had explained eloquently, the passage of Isaiah I’d cited was to show authority bestowed. The words “You are Kepha & on this kepha…” come to mind. It’d be interesting to see the rest in Greek as well as Aramaic.

 

[JohnR77]

topic:495607"]
Eliacim is a “type” of Christ
[/quote]

I can see how you made that mistake. You relied exclusively on the quote that was placed above from Isaiah 22. You should have gone to the webpage I referenced above on Isaiah which clearly explains this passage. You also have to go to the references I made in Kings.

 

[JohnR77]

. Eliakim now becomes second in command under King Hezekiah, the descendant of King David.

Isaiah 22:15,19-24
“Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace… 19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family …”

Eliakim becomes the holder of the Keys, and so becomes the vicar, or the regent, or also called the “master of the palace” who ruled as an agent or representative for the king.
Cf. 1 Kings 18:3,4
2 Kings 10:5, and 15:5

 

[JohnR77]

In the passages from the book of Kings. See above. You can clearly see that Eliakim is not the king

 

[JohnR77]

2 Kings 10:5

10.5
The LORD afflicted the king, and he was a leper until the day he died. He lived in a house apart, while Jotham, the king’s son, was master of the palace and ruled the people of the land.*

As mentioned above the king of Israel is a type of Christ the person beneath his authority is clearly not Christ

 

[tgGodsway]

kainosktisis, you know as well as I do that there is no original Aramaic text, as is with the Greek.

When you say Jesus spoke in Aramaic, you are guessing. As I am when I insist He was speaking Greek. However, the Greek language was the only popular language in His day and the Aramaic was secondary.

There are other ways to convey the message in Greek in the way you insist it was meant in Aramaic. The Greek translator was not stumped because of the gender issue on the word rock.

 

[JohnR77]

The Catholic tradition is not based exclusively on Isaiah. C reference to Genesis below. Quoting the website I referenced above on Isaiah

s.

In Old Testament we can find both a position of the King, and also a second position called the Master of the Palace, or Regent of the Palace (or House.) This second person was the King’s representative, or vicar, who spoke with full authority for the King ( or Pharaoh as is seen in Genesis 41:39-40.) His position is denoted by the fact that he carries the keys that belong to the king. He also has special clothes, a robe, and is a father figure as stated in Isaiah 22:21. See the link to the article about King Hezekiah for a detailed scripture study on this point.

 

[hope]

kainosktisis, you know as well as I do that there is no original Aramaic text, as is with the Greek.

When you say Jesus spoke in Aramaic, you are guessing. As I am when I insist He was speaking Greek. However, the Greek language was the only popular language in His day and the Aramaic was secondary.

There are other ways to convey the message in Greek in the way you insist it was meant in Aramaic. The Greek translator was not stumped because of the gender issue on the word rock.

I am confused by your first sentence. I take the meaning two ways, there is no original manuscripts in either Aramaic or Greek. Or there is none in Aramaic but there is in Greek…
Mark 14:36

And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will."Aramaic

As far as what language Jesus spoke we have examples that He did indeed speak Aramaic.
Mark 5
41 He took her by the hand and said to her, Talitha cum', which means, Little girl, get up!

John 1:
42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter).
These versus demonstrate the language that Jesus spoke no guess work.
You have it backwards. The primary language of the Jews at that time was Aramaic. They did business in Greek. No matter what language Jesus changed his name. Kinda ignored from those who want to down play that Peter was appointed leader.
This is what is shown in that passage
1.Peter had supernatural knowledge that God inspire in him
2. his name was changed which always indicated a change in stature. Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah.

thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

He changed the name of Isaac to Israel

10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

1. Jesus gives the Keys of Heaven to him which symbolize authority to govern.

 

[MT1926]

The meaning of the keys is clear to me MT. They are metaphorical keys but it’s not rocket science.

Could you further explain what this means to you. I don’t really see how the keys being metaphorical changes anything?

Like I already said earlier I agree Jesus didn’t physically hand St. Peter a set of keys. The keys were symbolic (which is a metaphorical expression) of authority.

Mt. 16 has to do with spiritual authority based on a fundamental truth that Jesus is the Christ.

OK. So what does this mean? Whatever type of authority you want to spin it to mean it still doesn’t change the fact that the authority resides in the keys and the keys were given to St. Peter?

The key to the house of David, as others elude to, only points to Christ who alone has the authority of OPEN doors, or close them.

OK no objections. I agree the key of David belongs to Jesus. However…

Could you please explain why Christ is powerless to allow someone else to open and close the doors for him?

Could you further explain why Christ would even mention giving St. Peter keys if it is of no importance in scripture?

Could you finally explain why Christ is not allowed to give His authority to anyone else?

God Bless

 

[tgGodsway]

OK. So what does this mean? Whatever type of authority you want to spin it to mean it still doesn’t change the fact that the authority resides in the keys and the keys were given to St. Peter?

I agree, Peter got a set of keys, but Peter was not alone to get authority however. So where does that leave us? Jesus gave both power and authority to all of His disciples to command the unseen world in (Luke 9:1.)

All of the Disciples were commanded to exercise it in Matt 18:18 in terms of binding and loosening.

So, can we make a special case of the keys itself to be something strictly for Peter, meaning that somehow because Jesus used this metaphor only with him, it therefore should mean that Peter was now to be the head of the Church here on earth, while Jesus would be the head of the same Church but from heaven? OF COURSE YOU CAN MAKE THIS SPECIAL CASE! but it doesn’t mean that the scriptures actually teach it, or that we have a record of fellow-apostles acknowledging it and respecting it.

We have no such divine record anywhere to be found MT. Even the Apostle Paul who came later, tells us that His authority and doctrine came from Christ, see 2nd. Cor. 10:8;

Also,… In Galatians 1:1 Paul shows something interesting here , He writes: “Paul an apostle not from MEN, nor THROUGH man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father…” His point was simple, Paul didn’t get his orders from any other apostle including Peter. He got them directly from Jesus Christ.

 

[tgGodsway]

Jesus gives the Keys of Heaven to him which symbolize authority to govern.

You are working too hard here Hope. I did not say there is no record of Jesus speaking in Aramaic. I was specifically calling the Matthew 16 passage into question. But my point stands that Greek was the fluent language and since we simply do not know what language Jesus used in this passage, I go with the popular and fluent language.

Jesus would never tell His Church that He was going to build it upon a man, whether it be Peter or Paul or any man.
This line of thought is inconsistent with everything we read about Christ our foundation, not to mention the dilemma it causes with a host of scripture.

 

[tgGodsway]

Could you please explain why Christ is powerless to allow someone else to open and close the doors for him?

Could you further explain why Christ would even mention giving St. Peter keys if it is of no importance in scripture?

Could you finally explain why Christ is not allowed to give His authority to anyone else?

To the first question: Christ is not powerless to allow someone else to open and close doors. He has preeminence because He has supremacy over His creation. This authority seems to be reserved strictly for Him, just as is the Father’s preeminence to know who will sit at His right and left.

To the second question: I never tried to imply it was not important. I, again, am persuaded that Peter’s answer is locked up in Jesus’ question, who do YOU say I am… it was a learning curve in the moment.
The fact of the matter is, everyone who is in Christ, came to the same conclusions as Peter. Therefore, we too may have the keys to the kingdom of God. For it is the Father’s good pleasure to give us the kingdom.

To the third question: The second question tells my answer. God is no respecter of persons. His authority can be given to anyone who seeks His heart. If you get His heart, you may also get His hands.

 

[JohnR77]

This authority seems to be reserved strictly for Him

The Church recognizes only genuine and freely given conversions. So, the Church rules by invitation not by force. At the end of time God will hold accountable those who disobeyed.

Matthew 10:1
“Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.”

Luke 10:17-19
“The seventy (-two) returned rejoicing, and said, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name.’ Jesus said, ‘I have observed Satan fall like lightning from the sky. Behold, I have given you the power ‘to tread upon serpents’ and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you.”

2 Corinthians 13:10
“I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority which the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.”

Titus 2:15
“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.”

Matthew 18:17
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Notice that Jesus does not say that the final authority is a book, but rather a Church, which by necessity had to be a visible Church in order to be identified so that we could listen to it and obey its decisions.

John 17:20-21
“I [Jesus] pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Therefore, the Church that Jesus established has a visible unity, unlike the false claim to an invisible unity that Protestants claim to have, and this unity is a visible sign, or a visible apologetic, pointing to the world that Jesus is the Messiah.

This Church and her Apostolic Tradition working along with Sacred Scriptures would be the final authority, “the pillar and foundation of truth” 1 Timothy 3:15, in determining what God had revealed. It is by the authority of the Church that Christ founded, being guided by the Holy Spirit, that we know which books are truly the inspired Word of God and which are not, therefore we can know with infallible certainty which books belong in the Bible and which do not. This Church, whose teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit, shows us the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/apostolic_succession.html

 

[MT1926]

I agree, Peter got a set of keys, but Peter was not alone to get authority however. So where does that leave us? Jesus gave both power and authority to all of His disciples to command the unseen world in (Luke 9:1.)

All of the Disciples were commanded to exercise it in Matt 18:18 in terms of binding and loosening.

Once again I agree. I already explained this way up there.

So, can we make a special case of the keys itself to be something strictly for Peter, meaning that somehow because Jesus used this metaphor only with him, it therefore should mean that Peter was now to be the head of the Church here on earth, while Jesus would be the head of the same Church but from heaven? OF COURSE YOU CAN MAKE THIS SPECIAL CASE! but it doesn’t mean that the scriptures actually teach it, or that we have a record of fellow-apostles acknowledging it and respecting it.

And a math book doesn’t teach you that 2+2=4 if your not willing to accept the answer.

If you don’t want to say this verse shows us that Jesus singled out St. Peter that’s fine. God gave us free will and if we don’t want to accept it that is our choice. However, if you want to be honest with yourself and Christ you need to think long and hard what Jesus intended with Matthew 16. To simply say the things you don’t agree with are not important or just “symbolic” in scripture is to read with blinders on.

We have no such divine record anywhere to be found MT.

Just because you refuse to see it isn’t evidence that it’s not there. You keep claiming you are only here to defend your faith against us. However, the only defense I keep seeing is you telling me I’m wrong, with no scriptural basis for telling me this.

Even the Apostle Paul who came later, tells us that His authority and doctrine came from Christ, see 2nd. Cor. 10:8;

Also,… In Galatians 1:1 Paul shows something interesting here , He writes: “Paul an apostle not from MEN, nor THROUGH man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father…” His point was simple, Paul didn’t get his orders from any other apostle including Peter. He got them directly from Jesus Christ.

We’ve already discussed this, in verse 18 St. Paul tells us…Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

Why did he do this? Because people thought he was lying since he did not have St. Peter’s blessing.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Jesus would never tell His Church that He was going to build it upon a man, whether it be Peter or Paul or any man.
This line of thought is inconsistent with everything we read about Christ our foundation, not to mention the dilemma it causes with a host of scripture.

Just curious. If Jesus didn’t build His Church upon men (Peter, the Apostles and all of the Martyrs) how exactly was it built?

God Bless