What does Isaiah 22 prove?

[NotWorthy]

False argument. For one thing, Sola Scriptura admits there are things besides itself as authoritative - it is only that Scripture always trumps other things.

Jesus might have yanked the keys. Your job is to prove He didn’t.

So since Scripture does not Trump that Jesus did not take the keys back, you are still having to prove that he did.

Volley!

 

[runandsew]

Why should He have left human infallible interpreters when He sent us the Holy Spirit instead to lead us into all truth? But it is not for us to ask why God does anything but rather to ask what He has done and what we should do.

The Bible plus the Holy Spirit is a powerful combination. In your zeal to prove Catholicism correct you could do much damage by disparaging their power.

Wow, you just described the Catholic Church there.
thanks

A race car is very powerful also, but if you let a person that has not been taught to drive it correctly drive this race car on a city street, many people walking on the sidewalk are in some pretty serious danger.
I am not disparaging this power of Scipture and the Holy Spirit, but Mormonism and the JW’s came out of the Protestant movement, claiming to be interpreting the Bible by the power of the Holy Spirit correctly.

But unfortunately without the authority given to the church by Christ, all of Protestantism and the Mormons and the JW’s have gone away from the truth.
Yes, you still have many of the truths you inherited from the Catholic Church, but now you also teach many falsehoods mixed in with it. And why, because you claim that you can interpret the bible correctly outside of the Church that Jesus established.

God did pick a funny way to start a church, with some rural fishermen, zealots, giving a thief and traitor the esteemed position of moneyman, etc. Tax collectors and sinners, not the righteous but the sinners are called. We are a bunch of bums from the get-go. Infallible? Us? You got to be kidding me.

The bumbling men became the Catholic Church, and when they were given the power of the Holy Spirit, they were able to powerfully proclaim Gods truth infallibly.

God left us, He tells us, as sheep to be slaughtered, to be killed, persecuted, driven out, rejected, despised and unloved. For this we are to return blessing, love, acceptance, etc., to turn the other other cheek. To follow Christ is to commit suicide in hope of great reward.

Yes and the Catholic Church has been rejected, hated, unloved, and slaughtered through out the ages.

You have to trust Christ to lead you into truth. No one else. To become Catholic you have to trust Him to lead the Church. Somewhere I wrote of an imaginary conversation, prayer from a Protestant:
P: Lord, I will follow you anywhere, do anything you wish, die for you.
Jesus: Great. Follow Peter.
P: Say what?

It is Jesus that is leading his Church, through the leaders he entrusted his Church to. When the Catholic Church speaks, it is Christ speaking through the Church.
I put all my trust in Jesus, and I trust that he left us an infallible interpreter of scripture, so that we would not be led astray.

Jesus went, literally, to great pains to save us. He also was very clear some would go to hell. I am not a universalist. I trust God to get me home. It is mind-boggling that He would want me to trust what I have seen of the Catholic Church, but then again sometimes He seems in the business of mind-boggling.

Jesus died so that we might be saved.
He left us his church so that it might guide us to him.
If the church has been evil and corrupt at times over the years, it is because it is filled with saved sinners.
But never has the Church strayed in it’s teaching of the truth.

 

[Truthstalker]

So since Scripture does not Trump that Jesus did not take the keys back, you are still having to prove that he did.

Volley!

Rev 1:18 and 3:7: who has the keys? Not Peter. Jesus.

You assert the Pope has the keys to the end of time. You must prove that, not require me to prove the opposite in order to prove your point. It is your assertion, not mine.

In the time of Eli Israel was smug. They used the ark as a weapon. God gave it over to the Philistines. He later allowed His temple to be plundered, not once but several times, in judgement against His people.

What is it that makes you so sure that while the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, the One we are really supposed to fear might not take away everything from it that He hates? Look at the rest of Isaiah and the warnings set out. In context, dare you suggest there is an immutable position of absolute power that will never be removed in the promises of Isaiah 22?

Volley!

 

[Truthstalker]

runandsew,

I see here a circular argument:

The church is right because it says it is right. It is right because it says it is infallible. Why? Because it is right.

Your argument also puts Catholicism on the same level as every other belief system. Whoops.

You can use Biblical arguments to demolish the JWs and the Mormons. An honest review of Scripture and history is more than sufficient. Arguing that God was so inarticulate in writing Scripture that you need a human interpreter is fallacious. But that is off thread.

 

[Nita]

Hello Truthstalker,

It is mind-boggling that He would want me to trust what I have seen of the Catholic Church, but then again sometimes He seems in the business of mind-boggling.

What have you “seen” that you don’t trust - that you call the “Catholic Church”.
No one is asked to “trust” in the behavior of the members of the Catholic Church - as I’m sure you’re well aware. So, what declared Catholic truths do you consider it “mind-boggling that He would want me to trust”?

Nita

 

[NotWorthy]

Rev 1:18 and 3:7: who has the keys? Not Peter. Jesus.

You assert the Pope has the keys to the end of time. You must prove that, not require me to prove the opposite in order to prove your point. It is your assertion, not mine.

In the time of Eli Israel was smug. They used the ark as a weapon. God gave it over to the Philistines. He later allowed His temple to be plundered, not once but several times, in judgement against His people.

What is it that makes you so sure that while the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, the One we are really supposed to fear might not take away everything from it that He hates? Look at the rest of Isaiah and the warnings set out. In context, dare you suggest there is an immutable position of absolute power that will never be removed in the promises of Isaiah 22?

Volley!

Smug? No, surely not. Just trusting in God’s Word. The last thing Jesus said in Matthew is that I will be with you til the end of the age.

In John, Jesus told them that he would sent the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth.

So, just as Jesus promised, He will not abandon us, and He will guide us in all truth. Thank God (no pun intended) that Jesus left us with a means of keeping the truth, via the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, the Bible? No, not the Bible, The Church.

The Keys in Rev. 1? Hmmm…

*.**.and I hold the keys of death and of Hades ***The Greek word, *Hades, means the abode of the dead. The Hebrew word is Sheol. *We use the Latin word *Purgatory. *The Roman Empire claimed to have all authority even over life and death/the grave. But Christ in His resurrection has defeated sin and death. He is now the Lord of all Lords and He holds the keys to both life, death, and the grave. But Jesus, our High Priest and our King, also entrusted those very keys which existed since Creation, to someone else.

The Key in Rev. 3? Hmmm…

I don’t recall there being one key to the kingdom. Jesus gives Peter “keys”. Jesus holds the “key”. The only reason Peter is holding the keys to the Kingdom is because Jesus hasn’t returned to this world, in the way that He is coming on the Last Day. Peter and his successors are simply tenants of the kingdom until the King returns.

 

[NotWorthy]

runandsew,

I see here a circular argument:

The church is right because it says it is right. It is right because it says it is infallible. Why? Because it is right.

Your argument also puts Catholicism on the same level as every other belief system. Whoops.

You can use Biblical arguments to demolish the JWs and the Mormons. An honest review of Scripture and history is more than sufficient. Arguing that God was so inarticulate in writing Scripture that you need a human interpreter is fallacious. But that is off thread.

Your right.

The Bible that the Catholic Church gave you tells you that the Catholic Church is right and that it is infallible.

It’s about as circular as you can get.

Guilty as charged.

 

[Truthstalker]

Hello Truthstalker,

What have you “seen” that you don’t trust - that you call the “Catholic Church”.
No one is asked to “trust” in the behavior of the members of the Catholic Church - as I’m sure you’re well aware. So, what declared Catholic truths do you consider it “mind-boggling that He would want me to trust”?

Nita

Hey, Nita! Long time no argue!

I’m not in attack mode more than I can help. But are you telling me you don’t trust clergy, fellow Catholics, bishops, nuns, priests or the Pope? And that no one should? Didn’t think so. So what do you mean?

On the other issue you raise, this thread is one mind-boggling concept, that the papacy is here to stay regardless of anything. That point still hasn’t been made. This is the third thread I’ve brought it up on.

 

[Truthstalker]

Smug? No, surely not. Just trusting in God’s Word. The last thing Jesus said in Matthew is that I will be with you til the end of the age.

In John, Jesus told them that he would sent the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth.

So, just as Jesus promised, He will not abandon us, and He will guide us in all truth. Thank God (no pun intended) that Jesus left us with a means of keeping the truth, via the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, the Bible? No, not the Bible, The Church.

The Keys in Rev. 1? Hmmm…

*.**.and I hold the keys of death and of Hades ***The Greek word, *Hades, means the abode of the dead. The Hebrew word is Sheol. *We use the Latin word *Purgatory. *The Roman Empire claimed to have all authority even over life and death/the grave. But Christ in His resurrection has defeated sin and death. He is now the Lord of all Lords and He holds the keys to both life, death, and the grave. But Jesus, our High Priest and our King, also entrusted those very keys which existed since Creation, to someone else.

The Key in Rev. 3? Hmmm…

I don’t recall there being one key to the kingdom. Jesus gives Peter “keys”. Jesus holds the “key”. The only reason Peter is holding the keys to the Kingdom is because Jesus hasn’t returned to this world, in the way that He is coming on the Last Day. Peter and his successors are simply tenants of the kingdom until the King returns.

Not the Church. The Holy Spirit has been given us to guide us and protect us. Historically we’ve seen what the Church does.

Ok, how many keys are there and where do they all go? Are you saying the ones Peter has aren’t the same that Jesus has, and it’s not the same set the angel has who locks up the devil? If Jesus didn’t give Peter all the keys, what is different and why? If they are the same, then prove it. A real steward would get all the keys, I think. But in Revelations we see Jesus with the keys and no mention of Peter. So tell me how he still has the keys.

 

[Truthstalker]

Your right.

The Bible that the Catholic Church gave you tells you that the Catholic Church is right and that it is infallible.

It’s about as circular as you can get.

Guilty as charged.

Actually God gave us the Bible. And it is still to be proven that the Catholic Church is right. And your argument is circular.

Spike!

 

[Nita]

The relevance of Isaiah 22 to the NT may have more to do with showing that the “power of the keys” was a familiar concept to the Jews. Thus, when Jesus told Peter that He was giving him the keys, Peter (and all others that were present) knew what it meant.

If one considers Isaiah 22 to be prophetic in the sense of foretelling future NT events - specifically events centered on the papacy - then the removal of the peg (papacy) would seem to coincide with the end of the Church on earth - “that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it” (verse 25). The description in verse 24 of what hangs on the peg ( “all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups, even to everyinstrument of music”) seems like a reference to the liturgy of the Church - the Mass and the Sacraments.

Rev 1:18 and 3:7: who has the keys? Not Peter. Jesus

Note where Jesus is in those passages.
So, who has the keys? Both Jesus and Peter.
Jesus in heaven; the Office of Peter on earth. And there is never a conflict between the two. Mt 16:19 “and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…”.

Nita

 

[Nita]

Hey, Nita! Long time no argue!

I’m not in attack mode more than I can help. But are you telling me you don’t trust clergy, fellow Catholics, bishops, nuns, priests or the Pope? And that no one should? Didn’t think so. So what do you mean.

It has been awhile. Good to talk to you again. And I wasn’t meaning to attack either - just really wanted to know what you meant when you referred to “what I have seen of the Catholic Church”.

Regarding trust: you hit it right the first time. My “trust” is NOT in the clergy, fellow Catholics, bishops, …Pope. It’s in God - and His truths revealed to us thru Scripture and the infallible teaching office of the Church. When the Church infallibly defines something, I don’t believe it because I trust that particular Pope or group of bishops; I believe it because I trust God and His power to prevent them from ever declaring a falsehood as infallible truth. Don’t you believe God has such power? Don’t you believe He would exercise it to uphold His promises in Mt. 16? It’s God who decides when we’re born and when we die. He’s perfectly capable of calling a Pope “home” if he were about to declare something as infallibly true that was in fact false.

Hope that answers your question.

Nita

 

[NotWorthy]

Not the Church. The Holy Spirit has been given us to guide us and protect us. Historically we’ve seen what the Church does.

No, typically when Jesus is strictly talking to the Apostles, he is talking of the Church’s function. You don’t think he gave all of us the authority to forgive AND REMIT sins, now do you? When Jesus is talking to the public, He is talking to all of us.

Ok, how many keys are there and where do they all go? Are you saying the ones Peter has aren’t the same that Jesus has, and it’s not the same set the angel has who locks up the devil? If Jesus didn’t give Peter all the keys, what is different and why?

I don’t know and don’t really care. Jesus gave Peter keys. No where does it say He took them away. Instead He says He will stay with the Church til the end of time. In Revelation, He mentions having “a key”. So I’m assuming the Peter, and hence his office, still has the keys. No where is this teaching contradicting the Bible.

If they are the same, then prove it. A real steward would get all the keys, I think.

I’m sorry, where does the Bible say that?

But in Revelations we see Jesus with the keys and no mention of Peter. So tell me how he still has the keys.

See my points above, as this is a redundant question.

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually God gave us the Bible. And it is still to be proven that the Catholic Church is right. And your argument is circular.

Spike!

No, God gave the inspired writers the words to put down (Sacred Scripture). Then God guided the Church to pick out the right books to include in the Canon (Sacred Tradition).

Yes, my logic is circular. The Church gave us the Bible that tells us that the Church teaches right and is infallible in her teaching.

Dig!

 

[runandsew]

You can use Arguing that God was so inarticulate in writing Scripture that you need a human interpreter is fallacious. But that is off thread.

Then why are there so many Protestant denominations each teaching different doctrines, and each claiming to teach what the bible teaches?
And don’t give me this "we agree on the essentials, because the only things they agree on are the doctrines that they inheirited from the Catholic Truth.
There are things like baptism, once saved always saved, and many more they all disagree on.
Wasn’t it the Ethopian who was reading Isaiah in his chariot, when Phillip came up to him, and told Phillip, how can I understand unless someone teaches me?
Well Phillip was one of the Apostles, there we show the teaching authority of the Church.

Isaiah 22 teaches that here on earth, Peter and his following popes were the keeper of the keys. Yes Jesus has them in heaven in the book of Revelation, but here on earth, where we all reside, the pope has them. Jesus told Peter that he gave them to him.
And as for the passing on of the keys in the old testament, sure that passage mentions that they were taken away for corruption in that case, but thru out the Davidic kingdom, they would have been passed on when the prime minister died, and probably when there was a new king, and he put in his own royal cabinet.

sorry for my speling, I am at a computer with out spel check.

 

[NotWorthy]

You can use Biblical arguments to demolish the JWs and the Mormons. An honest review of Scripture and history is more than sufficient. Arguing that God was so inarticulate in writing Scripture that you need a human interpreter is fallacious. But that is off thread.

I wouldn’t call it fallacious (maybe, I should go look that up in the dictionary before I deny it…), but it’s only referring to what Peter said about Paul’s writings. And from some of the fruits we’ve seen of the Protestant Reformation (I know, not ALL of the fruits, just some of them), it’s seems the Good Peter was very prophetic.

 

[JaneFrances]

Not the Church. The Holy Spirit has been given us to guide us and protect us. Historically we’ve seen what the Church does.

Historically, we’ve seen what people have done in the name of “the Church.” The Church that Jesus founded, the spotless Bride, the Body of Christ is mysterious and, protected by the Holy Spirit, incapable of offensive transgression. Her offensive and defensive lines are purposed towards the salvation of souls and the stewardship of the Truth.

Ok, how many keys are there and where do they all go? Are you saying the ones Peter has aren’t the same that Jesus has, and it’s not the same set the angel has who locks up the devil? If Jesus didn’t give Peter all the keys, what is different and why? If they are the same, then prove it.

I suppose I understand the logic here. We are dealing with things metaphysical using our physical understanding. This is not necessarily a bad thing. . .the physical is essential and closely connected to the spiritual, so we mustn’t separate it. BUT also, we mustn’t demand that the physical stand alone in terms of God, Church, and humanity.

We certainly may understand “the keys”/“the key” as a real and physical thing–knowing all the while, that they are also symbolic and indicative of a more spiritual power. It’s that blasted Catholic both/and kind of a thing.

So, getting physical. . .Yes, God gave the keys to the kingdom to the chief steward in Isaiah 22! Yes Jesus gave the keys to Peter in Matthew 16! And YES Jesus is holding them in Revelation! These are all true observations.

Whose keys are they? God’s.

To whom does God give them? The chief steward/Peter

Does that mean that God doesn’t have a key to his own kingdom? NO!!!

This is what always baffles me with the Revelation passage. One, in arguing against the successive authority of the keys, would assert that because Christ is holding the key, that automatically means that nobody else could possibly hold them. This is odd.

When I go out of town, I always make sure that someone has keys to our house. We trust this person with the care of our home. This does not mean that, in handing them control of my doors and access to my home, that I am forfeiting my only key or that I am in some way abdicating my authority over my home and property. It simply means that I am giving a chosen steward authority in my stead.

A real steward would get all the keys, I think.

Do you suppose that in Isaiah 22, when the steward receives the key upon his shoulder that it means the king no longer has supreme power? Is this where you are going?

But in Revelations we see Jesus with the keys and no mention of Peter. So tell me how he still has the keys.

This can not be the smoking gun! Jesus Christ, God in the Flesh, King and Ruler, has never not had the keys to his kingdom! It should be no suprise that in an apocolyptic vision that He would hold the symbol of all judgement, authority and power. This does not, however, demonstrate in any way that Peter’s successors have lost their position in the course of time prior to the final judgement. This is the onus of the “See, Jesus has the key” position.

 

[Truthstalker]

I have in mind two principal attacks on the Catholic understanding of Isaiah 22. The first is that the Catholic interpretation is wrong, and the second is that, assuming it is correct, that there is no guarantee it continues unconditionally.

On the first point, Catholics turn the “as a father” into a universal fatherhood in the papacy. To my mind that is an unwarranted overextension of the meaning. Paul was a father to many but was never Pope. We have many fathers. There is no warrant for insisting on one father from this passage.

On the second point, the only response I seem to be getting is that I haven’t proven it is conditional. But you haven’t proven it unconditional, either. We seem to be at an impasse.

When I said “all the keys” I should have said “keys to everything.” I did not mean that somehow the steward reduces the authority of the master. This is of course the well-worn cry of the Reformation, that the Catholic Church has taken unto itself powers rightly belonging only to God, and so perhaps you read that into this. But I did not mean that.

I’m thinking about the either/and thing, the metaphysical nature of the keys, their symbology, real authority as contrasted with assigned authority, etc. All this must be factored into understanding what Isaiah 22 means. One steward is removed and another installed.

 

[NotWorthy]

TruthStalker, I’m not sure I’m following you.

Isaiah 22 does several things:

1. It shows that there is an office of Prime Minister
2. It shows that when one man is removed, another man replaces him.
3. It shows that the Prime Minister has real authority in the absence of the king (the keys are the signs of authority).
4. The peg of the PM will fall in Israel.
5. The Father to them is cool coincidence, but maybe nothing more.

Matthew shows:

1. There is an office of Prime Minister (Peter proves this in Acts)
2. Jesus will make this prime minister part of the foundation of His Church. (upon this rock…)
3. The Prime Minister has real authority (also proven in John 21).
4. The Church will be everlasting (I will be with you till the end of the age
5. The Church cannot teach in error (the gates of hell will not prevail)

There are too many similarities to call this coincidental. But as with all other types, what’s imperfect in the OT is made perfect in the NT. The perfection is in the teaching authority of the popes, not in the popes as Peter demonstrated.

 

[Truthstalker]

TruthStalker, I’m not sure I’m following you.

Isaiah 22 does several things:

1. It shows that there is an office of Prime Minister
2. It shows that when one man is removed, another man replaces him.
3. It shows that the Prime Minister has real authority in the absence of the king (the keys are the signs of authority).
4. The peg of the PM will fall in Israel.
5. The Father to them is cool coincidence, but maybe nothing more.

Matthew shows:

1. There is an office of Prime Minister (Peter proves this in Acts)
2. Jesus will make this prime minister part of the foundation of His Church. (upon this rock…)
3. The Prime Minister has real authority (also proven in John 21).
4. The Church will be everlasting (I will be with you till the end of the age
5. The Church cannot teach in error (the gates of hell will not prevail)

There are too many similarities to call this coincidental. But as with all other types, what’s imperfect in the OT is made perfect in the NT. The perfection is in the teaching authority of the popes, not in the popes as Peter demonstrated.

In your Isaiah 22 points, points 1-4 are the same thing restated. Then you state the same four points about Peter, drawing from other passages of debatable meaning, and declare it an amazing coincidence. You find attributes of a PM and then find similarities in the life of Peter, and then declare certainty!

Here’s the logical pattern used here:

Prime ministers are in an office with authority and succession.
Some Scriptures suggest Peter had an office.
Some Scriptures suggest Peter had authority.
Some Scriptures suggest Peter had succession.
Therefore Peter is the prime minister of the church.

The fallacy is the lack of exclusion of other things that may have office, authority and succession besides a prime minister.

One PM was removed as an act of divine judgement. One particular man was singled out as his replacement. I think you may go too far when you read papal succession into this. You would do better to approach that from the selection of Matthew to replace Judas than to draw that from Isaiah 22.

But then there’s that binding and loosing thing, found in Isaiah 22, the well-beloved Matthew passage, and in Revelation, as well as possibly elsewhere. If you’re going to make the connection, use the connection that is there.