(SPLIT) Mike Gendron's "Who Holds the Keys?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter crochet_lady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that the first and foremost question about the keys is why did Matthew decide to include this passage in his Gospel account? There must have a reason and also his readers and also those hearing his Gospel orally much have understood what he (Matthew) was saying. Does one think that somehow Jesus meant that everyone was to be their own minister? to be able to just decide what to believe and what not to believe of His( Jesus’) teachings?
Why Jesus say He was giving the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, if what Jesus meant something else? How come Jesus did not give the keys at that time in Matthew 16 to the rest of the Apostles? I’m thinking that that is why we Catholic’s have a magisterium to help guide using understanding Scripture and what it is saying and what it means. To just come to some conclusion based on what one thinks, or pre conceived notion of what one thinks it might mean shows a real lack of Scripture understanding.
 
crochet_lady said:
As per request #222 James the Just – some important questions you wanted a response from – the fasting and laying on of hands – Yes, those things Are done on occasion. So, please Don’t ‘assume’ a ‘no’. The times of the Apostles are Over. A unique time in history – those who were appointed to Be apostles because they’d been with Jesus Christ from the beginning of His ministry through His ascension back to heaven to the Father.

The subject of baptism and children of households being included. Your comment – it being ‘nigh inconceiveable for a household to Not include children’. Well --a person Can Assume anything they Want to. And how do you know that the ‘entire’ family didn’t consist of Older kids who were able to understand and accept just as the parents had?

And you Did make some good points – but I don’t know how to ‘reproduce’ the specific comments as others do. So – #222 will be responded to in parts.
Click to expand...
eddie_too said:
i missed crochet lady’s citing of scripture that prohibits infant baptism.

most certainly the tradition of infant baptism has been part of the Church from the beginning so far as can be determined from history and tradition.

remember when reading any of crochet lady’s posts that she does not claim to have ANY authority to be telling people how sacred scripture should be interpreted.

what she writes here comes entirely from her own imagination. sometimes what she writes agrees with a few people and other times it agrees with other people.

crochet lady, whether it is her intention or not, comes across as a church of one with no co-believers. there is a reason she speaks for no one but herself.
Click to expand...
as per the moderators request I have started a new thread please discuss infant baptism there. I would hate to see this discussion closed for going off topic.
 
the sola scriptura advocates cause me to wonder.

how many of them have no hands and eyes?

afterall, scripture says if your hand causes you to sin cut it off and if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out.
 
spina1953 said:
It seems to me that the first and foremost question about the keys is why did Matthew decide to include this passage in his Gospel account? There must have a reason and also his readers and also those hearing his Gospel orally much have understood what he (Matthew) was saying. Does one think that somehow Jesus meant that everyone was to be their own minister? to be able to just decide what to believe and what not to believe of His( Jesus’) teachings?
Why Jesus say He was giving the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, if what Jesus meant something else? How come Jesus did not give the keys at that time in Matthew 16 to the rest of the Apostles? I’m thinking that that is why we Catholic’s have a magisterium to help guide using understanding Scripture and what it is saying and what it means. To just come to some conclusion based on what one thinks, or pre conceived notion of what one thinks it might mean shows a real lack of Scripture understanding.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that part of the problem is pride. I don’t have to submit to the will of Jesus I will tell Him what scripture means because I can read it for myself but has been pointed out the very idea that you can interpret scripture ( I can read it myself) goes against Scripture. Yet if it were true that you can read it yourself than you would have to come to the conclusion that the Keys would not be scripture since there is not a single verse that says this and that authority was being given Peter.
 
crochet_lady said:
As per request #222 James the Just – some important questions you wanted a response from – the fasting and laying on of hands – Yes, those things Are done on occasion. So, please Don’t ‘assume’ a ‘no’.
Click to expand...
Really? You lay hands to pass on the authority and powers of the priesthood? Or do you believe that it’s symbolic?
The times of the Apostles are Over. A unique time in history – those who were appointed to Be apostles because they’d been with Jesus Christ from the beginning of His ministry through His ascension back to heaven to the Father.
Click to expand...
Why would you not worship the way that those who knew Christ did?
And you Did make some good points – but I don’t know how to ‘reproduce’ the specific comments as others do. So – #222 will be responded to in parts.
Click to expand...
There should be a button at the bottom right corner of each post that says “Quote”. Click on it. 👍
 
adrift said:
It seems to me that part of the problem is pride. I don’t have to submit to the will of Jesus I will tell Him what scripture means because I can read it for myself but has been pointed out the very idea that you can interpret scripture ( I can read it myself) goes against Scripture. Yet if it were true that you can read it yourself than you would have to come to the conclusion that the Keys would not be scripture since there is not a single verse that says this and that authority was being given Peter.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but I disagree in that all can who can read, can read Scripture. the problem is that while can read Scripture, that in and of itself does not mean that one can understand it, that what it say and what it means might very well be either hard to understand or that the meaning is obscure or vague. What the sacred author intended might not be what we in our modern day and age think in the same way. Word meaning and understand of word change over time and what was meant by a word that used may not be the same meaning the author meant when he used it. So to think that just by reading Scripture and being ale to understand it all is really pride and a big ego.
 
Will continue for just a moment with #222 – 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is past tense – follow the entire passage back and it’s reminding of what happened in the past.

And, yes, Jesus is the Good Shepherd and the Bread of Life – and the Living Water – etc, etc. And He did tell Peter three times in that one chapter to ‘feed my sheep’. – maybe because Peter denied Jesus three times as He was being led off to the pre-crucifixion activities. And - while out on the boat fishing – Peter tried to get out of the boat to follow / come to Jesus across the water. Peter was fine as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus. But as soon as his ‘faith’ faltered – he started sinking (If we keep our eyes on Jesus Christ we’ll be fine – we won’t ‘sink’.
So – a thought – Saul / Paul / was known to find Christians and put them in jail or worse / Persecuting them – yet Jesus reached down to him and gave him the job of ministering to those people – he suffered a great deal of hardship in the name of the Lord. / The Prison Epistles.-- he wrote From prison.
 
spina1953 said:
I agree with you, but I disagree in that all can who can read, can read Scripture. the problem is that while can read Scripture, that in and of itself does not mean that one can understand it, that what it say and what it means might very well be either hard to understand or that the meaning is obscure or vague. What the sacred author intended might not be what we in our modern day and age think in the same way. Word meaning and understand of word change over time and what was meant by a word that used may not be the same meaning the author meant when he used it. So to think that just by reading Scripture and being ale to understand it all is really pride and a big ego.
Click to expand...
You make good points. You can’t just read it like it was written for the modern mine to understand. You must read in context with the culture in mind but to often it seems that it is read with an already decided hypotheses.
 
This is in response to CL’s post#252: A simple example is Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians. This letter is regarded as the earliest work in the New testament as we have it. it was written by Paul some 20 yrs. after Jesus’ resurrection. Paul has two purposes in mind in writing the letter. The first is to bolster their faith. The young community of Christians was experiencing attacks from people without, and Paul wished to reconfirm their commitment to the faith he had preached a short time before. Paul was sure of their steadfastness from reports he had received, so the letter is upbeat, joyful in tone. The second purpose is to respond to the most serious problem that yet confronted those new Christians. They believed that the risen Lord would soon return on the clouds of heaven and that they all would meet Him. In fact, they lived in wait for Him. What caused them extreme confusion was the natural deaths of some of their community. Would those who had died not return to greet the coming Lord? Paul’s answer begins some 2,000 yrs. of theological reflection of the second Coming of Christ.

By understanding this context, one can now read 1Thessalonians in its entirely with much profit and understanding. But just to take a verse or two out of context without understanding what the whole of the letter was meant the reader to understand, insults Paul’s purpose in his writing it in the first place. Cherry picking a verse to make a point that is out of context show ignorance of Scripture understanding.
 
crochet_lady said:
And, yes, Jesus is the Good Shepherd and the Bread of Life – and the Living Water – etc, etc.
Click to expand...
Amen. You speak the truth.
And He did tell Peter three times in that one chapter to ‘feed my sheep’. – maybe because Peter denied Jesus three times
Click to expand...
Maybe? Do you know; or are you guessing? Is that Baptist theology, or are you making this up as you go? I like to think that my reading comprehension is pretty good, and I certainly read that as Jesus leaving Peter in charge to watch the flock. This has been STANDARD Christian theology since the day Christ rose from the dead.
And - while out on the boat fishing – Peter tried to get out of the boat to follow / come to Jesus across the water. Peter was fine as long as he kept his eyes on Jesus. But as soon as his ‘faith’ faltered – he started sinking (If we keep our eyes on Jesus Christ we’ll be fine – we won’t ‘sink’.
Click to expand...
True. We must always keep the faith. This is also STANDARD Christian theology. Thank you for that awesome reminder, crochet lady!
So – a thought – Saul / Paul / was known to find Christians and put them in jail or worse / Persecuting them – yet Jesus reached down to him and gave him the job of ministering to those people – he suffered a great deal of hardship in the name of the Lord. / The Prison Epistles.-- he wrote From prison.
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus did. And what a great job Paul did! However, Jesus did NOT entrust Paul with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Great at writing epistles, though… 😃
 
crochet_lady said:
As per request #222 James the Just – some important questions you wanted a response from – the fasting and laying on of hands – Yes, those things Are done on occasion. So, please Don’t ‘assume’ a ‘no’. The times of the Apostles are Over. A unique time in history – those who were appointed to Be apostles because they’d been with Jesus Christ from the beginning of His ministry through His ascension back to heaven to the Father.
Click to expand...
I’m unclear as to what you mean by this part.

In context, it seems like some kind of defense about NOT fasting and laying on of hands, even though you just claimed that your church does so?

Actually, though, according to Jesus, the time for fasting was AFTER He left.

Mt 9:14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”
15 And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.
(see also Mr 2:18; Lu 5:33)

And, the laying on of hands to confer the Authority that Jesus gave is seen in scriptures.

To Timothy (NOT an Apostle):
1Ti 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.

And, expecting Timothy to do likewise:
1Ti 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure

(see also Ac 6:6; 13:3; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6; Heb 6:2)
 
crochet_lady said:
The times of the Apostles are Over. A unique time in history – those who were appointed to Be apostles because they’d been with Jesus Christ from the beginning of His ministry through His ascension back to heaven to the Father.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a great reason to start a thread on apostolic succession, crochet lady. Are you interested? Let me know.
 
crochet_lady said:
And God was Also working with Peter in Peter’s ministry. Peter was told by God to 'feed My sheep" 3 times just to make sure Peter got the point.
Click to expand...
Almost.

Jesus spoke with measured words and nuance.

He commanded Peter 3 times using slightly different words each time:

Jesus tells Peter to “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my sheep,” and “Feed my sheep.”

That middle one: Tend my sheep is important.
Tend my sheep implies an overseer role for the flock as a whole.

The Greek word for tend in the above passage is poimaino which can also mean rule.
 
The best approach in understanding Scripture in context. In what setting did the book take shape? For what audience was it intended? What problem or situation motivated the sacred author to write? So in order to understand what the sacred author like Matthew, one needs to understand who he was writing to and who his listeners were and why he thought it important to say or write what he wrote and said. With this said, why did Matthew think that Matthew 16 was important and why did he think he needed to write that verse concerning the Keys and who gets them. What did he mean by Jesus giving the Keys to Peter? If he keys were Scripture or were to be given to all of the Apostles, why did not Jesus just say so and why would then not Matthew not just say that?
Its very obvious that that Matthew intended his readers and hearers to understand that Peter was to be the leader of the Church Jesus would build. It is also very obvious that his listeners were Jewish and understood what he was saying. it seems to me that early Christians understood this passage of Matthew’s. yet, just to take out of context without knowing why the author wanted to include it in his Gospel only leads to misunderstandings and also do so also there is those who willing distort it do promote their own distorted thinking against accepted thinking and understanding.
 
Father Knows Best

You mean you Don’t have any comment regarding the use of ‘Lamb’ and ‘sheep’? 🙂
 
Crochet lady: do you believe that the laying on of hands is symbolic?
 
nothing personal, but based on my readings of crochet lady’s comments, she is very reluctant to take a position on any of her beliefs. time after time others have asked what her position is on a question she poses to this forum and time after time she ignores the question or answers it with another question that may or may not be germane to the question posed to her.

her stock in trade tends to be stating unsupported conclusions and making unsupported attacks on the ancient traditions of the gospels that have been handed down to us by the apostles.

her posts most often express little interest in engaging in discussion and mostly are sporadic personal observations about others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top