The historicity of the Church

[FathersKnowBest]

I can see CC liking Korah for it is negative towards her reformers

It’s something that specifically tells the “reformers” that they are sinning. We don’t like it, but it is the truth.

but to take on the asking for a earthly king is negative towards papacy and not so funny.

Funny as in “odd” that you would bring up something that militates against your position.

God put in place a kingly dynasty, which He guaranteed would last forever.
This Davidic dynasty is fulfilled in Jesus, the “son of David.” Jesus in turn created a prime ministerial office, the “over the house”, just as the Davidic kingdom had.

The Israelites rebelled against Judah, installing instead their OWN kings, creating their OWN temple, worshipping THEIR way, much like the protestants.

 

[Nicea325]

During Peter’s time, YES.
After Peter’s death, Jerusalem may have ceased to be the center for reference. Apostle Paul is giving clear instructions to his successors on doctrinal basis.
Leadership is important in every setting, whether in a family, a church or a country. Jesus may have preferred Peter for the apostles. However, Jesus chooses Paul for the gentiles who seems to have been more qualified than Peter in speech, education, knowledge of law, in languages, in writing, in charisma etc

Ecumenical is recent; it was introduced during the 2nd Vatican council.

No offense,but I have no idea what Bible or church history you are reading? My Bible and church history beg to differ with your premise

 

[Nicea325]

I** said petras is immovable and I said Jesus is Petras. Peter is petros.**
Thank you for trying to understand but it makes sense to many. Petros is a stone and if you say boulder then petras is always bigger, like a cliif ( Gibraltar is a cliff)… It is not insignificant . Reminds of belittling symbolic view of eucharist because it is “only” a "mere’ symbol… An insignificant stone slew Goliath, howbeit in the hands of an inspired skilled youth named David . Peter, in the skilled hands of the Lord, did mighty things and was certainly hurled at the kingdom of darkness with great effect.

Not exactly! Jesus more than likely said it in Aramaic,not Greek when he spoke directly and personally to Peter. Your argument holds no validity at all. Your argument conveys a message that Jesus was speaking of himself and to himself,which is just plain absurd.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me that By Jesus giving Peter the keys Jesus was making Peter the head and leader of the Church Jesus is going to build His Church on. if as some have implied that somehow that when Peter died there was or no need for any succession of Peter’s office seems to me to favor chaos in that anyone could say whatever they thought Jesus preached and taught to their own interpretation which makes no sense at all in my book. Jesus gave Peter the Keys and Jesus told Peter that He (Jesus) is going to build His Church on him. It does not take rocket science to understand that at least it seems that way to me. Peter than can decide who takes his place when he dies in which he did when he appointed Linus to succeed him in his office the leader of the Church Jesus built on him (Peter)

 

[fnr]

Below is a an excerpt of the chronology of events that were gradually adopted in the Universal Church of the Roman Empire.

1. Sign of the Cross 310 A.D.

Tertullian (ca. 200 AD): “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross”

1. Mary declared “Mother of God” 431 A.D.

Origen (184/5 - 253/254 AD) used the title, “Theotokos” (God-bearer). That is the title to which Nestorius objected, when he was expelled from his post in 431 AD. Incidentally, the Nestorian “Assyrian Church of the East” and the Catholic Church acknowledged in 1994 that the term “Mother of God” (Catholic usage) and “Mother of Christ our God and Savior” (Church of the East usage) were both right and legitimate.

1. Canonization of dead saints 995 A.D.

Um… Acts 7:55. Stephen dying sees Heaven. What would you call that?

1. Rosary beads 1090 A.D.

Desert Fathers in the 3rd and 4th centuries used knotted ropes for prayers.

1. Transubstantiation of the host 1215 A.D.

The word “transubstantial”, in referring to bread, is in the very words of the Lord’s Prayer in both Matthew and Luke. “Epiousios” typically is translated “daily” (…give us this day our daily bread), but it really means “epi-” = “trans/beyond” + “ousious” = “substance”.

1. Roman Catholic as the only true church 1303 A.D.

Matthew 16:16-18? If you don’t believe that, read Paul. Any of Paul. One Bread, One Body. The oneness of the Church is kinda fundamental to Paul.

1. Doctrine of the seven sacraments 1439 A.D.

Actually, all the sacraments are Biblical.

1. Tradition of equal authority to the Bible 1545 A.D.

Read Papias (2nd Century). Or maybe the fact that in St. Paul’s letters, he discusses what he was handed on. Tradition.

1. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary 1854 A.D.

Luke – “full of grace” – was he lying?

1. Pope reaffirms Mary as Mother of God 1931 A.D.

Uh… is Jesus God? Was Mary his mother?

1. Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950 A.D.

Palestinian Christians claim that the dormition was celebrated there prior to the Council of Ephesus.

 

[Nicea325]

Tertullian (ca. 200 AD): “We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross”

Origen (184/5 - 253/254 AD) used the title, “Theotokos” (God-bearer). That is the title to which Nestorius objected, when he was expelled from his post in 431 AD. Incidentally, the Nestorian “Assyrian Church of the East” and the Catholic Church acknowledged in 1994 that the term “Mother of God” (Catholic usage) and “Mother of Christ our God and Savior” (Church of the East usage) were both right and legitimate.

Um… Acts 7:55. Stephen dying sees Heaven. What would you call that?

Desert Fathers in the 3rd and 4th centuries used knotted ropes for prayers.

The word “transubstantial”, in referring to bread, is in the very words of the Lord’s Prayer in both Matthew and Luke. “Epiousios” typically is translated “daily” (…give us this day our daily bread), but it really means “epi-” = “trans/beyond” + “ousious” = “substance”.

Matthew 16:16-18? If you don’t believe that, read Paul. Any of Paul. One Bread, One Body. The oneness of the Church is kinda fundamental to Paul.

Actually, all the sacraments are Biblical.

Read Papias (2nd Century). Or maybe the fact that in St. Paul’s letters, he discusses what he was handed on. Tradition.

Luke – “full of grace” – was he lying?

Uh… is Jesus God? Was Mary his mother?

Palestinian Christians claim that the dormition was celebrated there prior to the Council of Ephesus.

Looks someone has been reading to many Jack Chick tracts…

 

[benhur]

I have no idea what you are talking about, as it relates to this post:

 

[Nicea325]

joe371;11994835:

You said, “t would be silly to give Peter the keys if Jesus did not have successors in mind…” and I ask why (is it silly ) ? The keys certainly opened doors as Peter certainly did on Pentecost and the preaching he did. and first to the gentiles,opening up the kingdom for them(because God already had). Do you need those keys again ? It would be like storming a fortress and actually having a key to their huge barricade doors.You open them up and the troops pour in and you have victory over the enemy. Why would later armies need that key for that fortress when it is already won/open etc .?

:ehh:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

joe371;11994835:

You said, “t would be silly to give Peter the keys if Jesus did not have successors in mind…” and I ask why (is it silly ) ? The keys certainly opened doors as Peter certainly did on Pentecost and the preaching he did. and first to the gentiles,opening up the kingdom for them(because God already had). Do you need those keys again ? It would be like storming a fortress and actually having a key to their huge barricade doors.You open them up and the troops pour in and you have victory over the enemy. Why would later armies need that key for that fortress when it is already won/open etc .?

Which brings us back on-topic. Good work, benhur!

It’s blatently obvious from Jewish history as seen in scripture that “the keys” designated a prime ministerial office. This office in the Davidic Kingdom had successors.

The issue of protestants not understanding or following salvation history is pretty spot-on here!

 

[Nicea325]

Which brings us back on-topic. Good work, benhur!

QUOTE]

Not understanding or refusing to understand?

 

[benhur]

We keep agreeing with you that Jesus is the divine Rock. The language is clear even to my little 5 year old nephew. Jesus renamed Simon, as rock on which he would build his church. He says to him: you are petros and on this petra…The only way it can make sense is if it went like this: you are petros but on this other petra I will build my church. However, it would have to identify that other petra. As a former protestant I tried to force your meaning but it gave me a headache. LOL…

Yes English makes it challenging. Greek solves it . Some truths are like gold and require much digging, but the seeker shall find. Petros is not a rock, it is a stone. You build on Petra, which is bigger. What subject is bigger than Peter in the rock discourse ? I believe there are three subjects and one of them is Peter, the other the Father and His revelation about the third subject , Jesus is the Christ. Petra would refer to the most previous subject/thought and that is not Peter , but the other two I mentioned. Peter never said the church was built on Him but did say jesus is the stone and a rock and we too are living stones forming the spiritual house.He never said he had authority over other elders but considered himself a fellow elder…Even Augustine says ,“For seeing that Christ is the rock(petra)”…but I believe he knew some Greek.

 

[benhur]

It’s something that specifically tells the “reformers” that they are sinning. We don’t like it, but it is the truth.

Thank you for the "compassion’’.

Funny as in “odd” that you would bring up something that militates against your position.

In a narrow context yes, but you miss the broader picture.The Jews wanting a king was a carnal idea and God was not happy with being ousted as their theocratic ruler. That God allowed their wish does not hide the spiritual error on Israel’s part. That the Lord uses what he allows also does not hide His perfect will.

The Israelites rebelled against Judah, installing instead their OWN kings, creating their OWN temple, worshipping THEIR way, much like the protestants.

Yes, and it never would have happened had they kept theocratic rule - it lead to earthly, carnal contentions…We believe the Holy Spirit is His primary Vicar on Earth, in the Lord’s “absence”. Many believe the Roman Church, like the Jews, wanted to emulate their surroundings and as once Rome ruled the earthly world, so her church would come to try to rule the Christian spiritual world. …So we are both presented with shoes to try out, and see what fits.

 

[benhur]

Would Jesus, speaking Aramaic, have said this: you are Kepha and on this Kepha - or would he have been speaking Greek, and therefore: you are petro and on this petra?

So is the greek wrong ? Should it have been, " you are petros and on this petros I will build…" ? It is speculation that kepha was used twice. As long as we are speculating why couldn’t have Jesus pointed to Himself when he said "on this kepha I will build ?

If I said: This is my boat and on this boat I will travel all over the world.

I see it as you are a boat and on this ship I will build my church. Or if Jehovah speaking with Noah, just before the flood called him a lifeboat and said, " on this ark I will save mankind", with the finished real ark in the background.

This simple grammatical logic cannot be refuted. it’s like forcing 2 +2 to = 5.

It is not simple since two different words were used in the Greek.

 

[benhur]

. Your argument holds no validity at all. Your argument conveys a message that Jesus was speaking of himself and to himself,which is just plain absurd.

Absurd, that divinity calls itself “rock” ? Is that a 500 year old man made contention, never seen before, divinity calling itself rock ?

 

[benhur]

benhur;11997175:

Which brings us back on-topic. Good work, benhur!

It’s blatently obvious from Jewish history as seen in scripture that “the keys” designated a prime ministerial office. This office in the Davidic Kingdom had successors.

The issue of protestants not understanding or following salvation history is pretty spot-on here!

Except for one thing, the New Kingdom is not fully established here on Earth yet. The Davidic kingdom was fully functioning, at a mature stage. The church age is to usher in His coming Kingdom, to proclaim it now, to displace the other kingdom of darkness. Even the apostles knew this, and had full authority, primarily to "proclaim’’ and when Jesus returns, they reign with Him (even bickered about it). For now, we are battling and have no palace (needing a ruling prime minister). It is not quite apples to apples, the Davidic kingdom and the Church age, yet

 

[joe371]

So is the greek wrong ? Should it have been, " you are petros and on this petros I will build…" ? It is speculation that kepha was used twice. As long as we are speculating why couldn’t have Jesus pointed to Himself when he said "on this kepha I will build ?

Because he did not; He said rather: You are Kepha (referring directly to Simon) and then said - on this Kepha, again referring to Simon, and yes Jesus is the Divine Rock.

No the Greek is not wrong. However, your interpretation differs from mine. What did Jesus leave us with to resolve these types of doctrinal disputes?

Would Jesus, speaking Aramaic, have said this: you are Kepha and on this Kepha - or would he have been speaking Greek, and therefore: you are petro and on this petra?

I see it as you are a boat and on this ship I will build my church.

 

[joe371]

Yes English makes it challenging. Greek solves it . Some truths are like gold and require much digging, but the seeker shall find. Petros is not a rock, it is a stone. You build on Petra, which is bigger. What subject is bigger than Peter in the rock discourse ? I believe there are three subjects and one of them is Peter, the other the Father and His revelation about the third subject , Jesus is the Christ. Petra would refer to the most previous subject/thought and that is not Peter , but the other two I mentioned. Peter never said the church was built on Him but did say jesus is the stone and a rock and we too are living stones forming the spiritual house.He never said he had authority over other elders but considered himself a fellow elder…Even Augustine says ,“For seeing that Christ is the rock(petra)”…but I believe he knew some Greek.

I am not sure why you keep stating what Catholics already believe, that Jesus is the Divine Rock.

So Jesus says - Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven - and because of this I will now change your name to an insignificant little stone.

Why???

 

[joe371]

benhur;11997175:

Which brings us back on-topic. Good work, benhur!

It’s blatently obvious from Jewish history as seen in scripture that “the keys” designated a prime ministerial office. This office in the Davidic Kingdom had successors.

The issue of protestants not understanding or following salvation history is pretty spot-on here!

 

[joe371]

benhur;11997175]You said, “t would be silly to give Peter the keys if Jesus did not have successors in mind…” and I ask why (is it silly ) ? The keys certainly opened doors as Peter certainly did on Pentecost and the preaching he did. and first to the gentiles,opening up the kingdom for them(because God already had). Do you need those keys again ? It would be like storming a fortress and actually having a key to their huge barricade doors.You open them up and the troops pour in and you have victory over the enemy. Why would later armies need that key for that fortress when it is already won/open etc .?

The keys represent authority; they were given to Peter alone, who passed them on to successors. Jesus, the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. In the OT the keys not only opened all the doors, but they provided access to the store houses and financial resources of the king. In addition, the keys of the kingdom were worn on a sash that was a ceremonial badge of office. The passage from Isaiah and the customs all reveal that the role of the royal steward was an office given by the king, and that it was a successive office—the keys being handed to the next steward as a sign of the continuing delegated authority of the king himself.

Isaiah 22 provides the Old Testament context that Jesus’ disciples would have understood completely as he quoted this particular passage in Matthew 16. When Jesus said to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” his disciples would recognize the passage from Isaiah. They would understand that not only was Jesus calling himself the King of his kingdom, but that he was appointing Peter as his royal steward. That John in Revelation sees the ascended and glorified Christ holding the eternal keys only confirms the intention of Jesus to delegate that power to Peter—the foundation stone of his Church.

 

[benhur]

I am not sure why you keep stating what Catholics already believe, that Jesus is the Divine Rock.