Sola Scriptura again

[ezeekl]

I’ve already made clear what I mean, that what Peter bound on earth by the grace of God will have been bound in heaven, or else what he declared would have resulted purely by fallible human reasoning. Ezeekl has shown that Jesus is addressing Peter in Matthew’s gospel. That should answer your question. If you’re going to debate with someone, at least have the courtesy to listen to what they have to say and refrain from arguing for argument’s sake.

PAX
:heaven:

To add to this, Peter was not the first to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. In the gospel of John, the very first chapter we read in verse 40:

“40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).”

So Andrew recognized Jesus as the Messiah long before Peter. Then we also read just a few verses later this:

"48 Nathan’a-el said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathan’a-el answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

So Nathan’ae-el also recognized Jesus as the Son of God before Peter.

But strangely neither of these two spoke when Jesus asked them the question in Matthew 16:15, “Who do you say I am?” Jesus didn’t confer the keys to Andrew or to Nathan’ae-el. He did not confer to them the binding and loosening power. Why???

The answer is simple. Jesus tells us. Simon’s statement comes not from Simon himself but by a revelation from The Father. Jesus takes that as a sign that The Father has chosen Simon to be the chief steward among the twelve stewards of the kingdom. This idea of having twelve stewards goes back to the OT Davidic kings. So nothing new here. Also the idea of having one of the twelve stewards act as chief steward again is from the Davidic kingdoms. Jesus is establishing his kingship and picked the twelve stewards who will aid Him in governing it and now Jesus has His chief steward. So Jesus changes Simon’s name to indicate the new role that he is to do. Jesus didn’t change Andrew’s name. Jesus didn’t change Nathan’ae-el’s name. But He changed Simon’s namre to Rock because, as Jesus states, this will be the Rock that He will build His Church on and so it is.

 

[spina1953]

Listen, we all love Peter, even though St. Paul is mentioned a minute tad more
But before we elevate him to much , and insist that he had more divine revelation to the others ,because he was better in office supposedly , remember 2 minutes later he speaks not for the apostles but for Satan. Also after this the apostles argued as to who would be greater or who would sit at the Lord’s right hand. Apparently Peter maybe spokesman or leader type but he certainly wasn’t greater in their eyes for them to think they qualified to be “greater” or have a better seat than “vicar”. …Again, we all love St. Peter and owe much to him and sorry if i made you stretch things in your zealous defense of your Petrine doctor…The nature of divine revelation that we have been discussing does not infringe on papal doctrine. Peace.

Hi benhur: I tried to find where it was 2 minutes later that he (Peter) and the satan talk, now I do not know that it 2 minutes later it could have been an hour later for all we know. Although that it really a moot point as to 2 minutes or longer or sooner.

I rather doubt that Peter himself ever thought that he was somehow greater or that they thought Peter was greater somehow in their eyes either. Peter was their spokesperson and leader of the 12, but the real leader was Jesus who was their teacher.

I think it was rather far later that the Apostles asked who would be greater in the kingdom of heaven, which I think that they were talking about something else and the subject matter in Matthew 16 is talking about something different than what you are implying. I and not zealous about Peter or anything for that matter but only try to see it the way maybe those who were there might have understood it. I try to put myself as one who at that time would have heard Jesus or the Apostles speaking or reading Matthew’s Gospel and understand it the way they might have understood it by their own understanding of what people thought at that time. If we try to understand it as modern man does then we miss the points they were making and the reasons why it was written in the first place. What did Matthew mean and what was he trying to say when he wrote that passage? that is the real question in understanding it at least as they would have understood it.

Any way the bottom line for me is living the Gospels which is what I think it is all about.

 

[Good_Fella]

To add to this, Peter was not the first to proclaim Jesus as the Messiah. In the gospel of John, the very first chapter we read in verse 40:

“40 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which means Christ). 42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).”

So Andrew recognized Jesus as the Messiah long before Peter. Then we also read just a few verses later this:

Andrew may have believed Jesus was the Messiah, but by the time he introduced Jesus to his brother Peter, he must have regarded him as just a man, but greater than Abraham, Moses, and all the prophets as all the Jews had. The Jews did not expect the Messiah to be a divine Person. Neither did Mary before the angel Gabriel appeared to her. That’s why she asked the angel: “How shall this be, since I do not know man?”

"48 Nathan’a-el said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49 Nathan’a-el answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

So Nathan’ae-el also recognized Jesus as the Son of God before Peter.

If in fact Jesus’ encounter with Nathaniel happened first in real time, the truth he apprehended was itself indeed divine, but it simply concerned God rather than have come from God which was the case with Peter. What prompted Nathaniel to declare what he did was Jesus’ omniscient power. Faith is essentially an act of assent to a divine or supernatural truth. Nathaniel’s act of faith was the outcome of having witnessed a visible sign. This mode of faith isn’t the inspired supernatural virtue which Peter was graced with. He was purely illuminated by the Holy Spirit. His conviction wasn’t reached merely by having witnessed something extraordinary or miraculous which affected his reasoning. Rather he received the supernatural gift we call ‘the light of faith’ which doesn’t come from external credible sources of experience. It was simply by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the assistance of divine grace that Peter professed his belief in Christ’s divinity. Nothing else can produce this light in any person’s mind. “Faith is the evidence of things that appear not” (Heb. 11:1).

But strangely neither of these two spoke when Jesus asked them the question in Matthew 16:15, “Who do you say I am?” Jesus didn’t confer the keys to Andrew or to Nathan’ae-el. He did not confer to them the binding and loosening power. Why???

The answer is simple. Jesus tells us. Simon’s statement comes not from Simon himself but by a revelation from The Father. Jesus takes that as a sign that The Father has chosen Simon to be the chief steward among the twelve stewards of the kingdom.

Before Peter answered, Jesus asked all the apostles: “Who do you that say that I am?” It was by being illuminated by the Holy Spirit and assisted by the grace of God that Peter himself replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” understanding full well the divine truth whch God had revealed to him directly.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[benhur]

I’ve already made clear what I mean, that what Peter bound on earth by the grace of God will have been bound in heaven, or else what he declared would have resulted purely by fallible human reasoning. Ezeekl has shown that Jesus is addressing Peter in Matthew’s gospel. That should answer your question. If you’re going to debate with someone, at least have the courtesy to listen to what they have to say and refrain from arguing for argument’s sake.

PAX
:heaven:

Yes sir. Sorry for asking.

 

[benhur]

I rather doubt that Peter himself ever thought that he was somehow greater or that they thought Peter was greater somehow in their eyes either. Peter was their spokesperson and leader of the 12, but the real leader was Jesus who was their teacher.

Ok

I think it was rather far later that the Apostles asked who would be greater in the kingdom of heaven, which I think that they were talking about something else and the subject matter in Matthew 16 is talking about something different than what you are implying. I

Well yes they were talking about who would be greater, as per there own words and the implication seems to be one of "role’ as well as stature or character. Apply it as it fits to Mat 16 which deals with role .

 

[Good_Fella]

Well yes they were talking about who would be greater, as per there own words and the implication seems to be one of "role’ as well as stature or character. Apply it as it fits to Mat 16 which deals with role .

And Jesus told his apostles that it was the Father’s prerogative to decide who would sit on his right or on his left. Since we know that the Father revealed the truth about the person of Jesus to Peter by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and His grace, it’s obvious who sits at Christ’s left hand as the first appointed vicar of the Church. Mary sits at her Son’s right hand as the Queen of God’s heavenly kingdom being the royal mother of the King.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
I think it was rather far later that the Apostles asked who would be greater in the kingdom of heaven, which I think that they were talking about something else and the subject matter in Matthew 16 is talking about something different than what you are implying. I

Well yes they were talking about who would be greater, as per there own words and the implication seems to be one of "role’ as well as stature or character. Apply it as it fits to Mat 16 which deals with role .

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. First of all in Mt 16 the apostles, being Jews, knew full well the Jewish scriptures and the link to the book of Isaiah. 12 stewards-12 apostles; chief steward entrusted with the keys- Peter entrusted with the keys. I don’t think, therefore, this OT reference is lost on them. Their grumbling later on can be seen as vying for the other positions since the top job has already been decided. Did they have even the foggiest idea of what awaited them? Did they know that they would set out alone to preach and baptize and to eventually endure martyrdom? I don’t think they really understood anything until the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit enlightened them and even then they did not know their eventual fate. To point out this lack of understanding all we need do is look at the brothers John and James who ask Jesus or their motther did (depending on which gospel version you take), if they could sit on Jesus’ left and right in the kingdom. Jesus tells them they do not know what they are asking.

 

[spina1953]

Quote:
I think it was rather far later that the Apostles asked who would be greater in the kingdom of heaven, which I think that they were talking about something else and the subject matter in Matthew 16 is talking about something different than what you are implying. I

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. First of all in Mt 16 the apostles, being Jews, knew full well the Jewish scriptures and the link to the book of Isaiah. 12 stewards-12 apostles; chief steward entrusted with the keys- Peter entrusted with the keys. I don’t think, therefore, this OT reference is lost on them. Their grumbling later on can be seen as vying for the other positions since the top job has already been decided. Did they have even the foggiest idea of what awaited them? Did they know that they would set out alone to preach and baptize and to eventually endure martyrdom? I don’t think they really understood anything until the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit enlightened them and even then they did not know their eventual fate. To point out this lack of understanding all we need do is look at the brothers John and James who ask Jesus or their motther did (depending on which gospel version you take), if they could sit on Jesus’ left and right in the kingdom. Jesus tells them they do not know what they are asking.

Hi ezeekl: I agree! I think along the lines you posted in that they were ! talking about one thing in Matt. 16 and another later on concerning who would be greater. I think that one thing one might need to remember is that the Gospels are not all written in an exact order and there might be other things that was took place and was said that was not written down, for whatever reason. I also agree with you in that the Apostles and the readers of Matt. would have understood what was being said, which modern man sometimes fails to understand it in the same way or manor that they did.

 

[ezeekl]

Hi ezeekl: I agree! I think along the lines you posted in that they were ! talking about one thing in Matt. 16 and another later on concerning who would be greater. I think that one thing one might need to remember is that the Gospels are not all written in an exact order and there might be other things that was took place and was said that was not written down, for whatever reason. I also agree with you in that the Apostles and the readers of Matt. would have understood what was being said, which modern man sometimes fails to understand it in the same way or manor that they did.

Quite right. One must be always vigilant that one does not “cherry pick” those passages that one wants and in putting them together come up with something new or novel that was not taught in the early church. The Word of God is immutable. It does not change. While some beliefs can be questioned and thus need clarification or better definition it cannot lead to a change in the teaching of the church. The very fact that the teaching of the Catholic Church today is in lock step with the teaching of the early church tells me, unequivically, that I have found that deposit of truth that Jesus bestowed upon the Apostles. Along the way we have had to define some beliefs such as the Trinity, the natures of Christ, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc. But while we defined them we did not make any wholesale change in doctrine as evidenced in the protestant denominations.

 

[spina1953]

Quite right. One must be always vigilant that one does not “cherry pick” those passages that one wants and in putting them together come up with something new or novel that was not taught in the early church. The Word of God is immutable. It does not change. While some beliefs can be questioned and thus need clarification or better definition it cannot lead to a change in the teaching of the church. The very fact that the teaching of the Catholic Church today is in lock step with the teaching of the early church tells me, unequivically, that I have found that deposit of truth that Jesus bestowed upon the Apostles. Along the way we have had to define some beliefs such as the Trinity, the natures of Christ, the nature of the Holy Spirit, etc. But while we defined them we did not make any wholesale change in doctrine as evidenced in the protestant denominations.

Hi ezeekl: You are correct that we need to be vigilant and not cherry pick passages together to come up with some new or novel doctrine that was never taught in the Church or something different than what the sacred writers were saying or intending and meant.

I remember years ago that some would come to the door and start quoting Bible passages and then try to explain it to me. I would say to them that one needs to read the whole passage to get the meaning of what was said. They would look at me as if I was some crazy person or evil, but I said that cherry picking quotes from Scripture is never a good way to go if one wants to understand what the sacred writer were saying and meant. Doctrines develop after long and often difficult thinking as to what God intended through the sacred writers and what they meant in what they were saying and going in some different direction only adds to confusion.