Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you for the 2 sites. I went to them just now to get a glimps of what its about and I will, but not in one setting, read them. Yes I do believe we have things in common.

I didn’t mean for you to read them in one sitting. I don’t know of anyone that could, and if they did, they would surely miss some of the points.

The book form is better for me because those verse interpretations the Church offers an interpretation for are easier to find because they are referenced from the back.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Like I said that is St. Augustines opinion. Mine may be different. As far as who’s opinion should care more weight? Its Don’t matter, that would be up to you. I’m intitled to mine just like he is intitled to his.

There’s a flaw in your positiont there, rev – in that St. Augustine (as recognized by virtually ALL christians) is one of the Fathers of the Church. His writtings are therefore part of the historical documentation of the Church and as such, hold a great deal of import. In other words, he was much closer to the events than anyone living today.

 

[schaick]

An example of ‘oral tradition’ and Jesus immediately came to mind.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

How did the people know what he was referencing about the ‘chair of Moses’? Christ didn’t explain it, and no one questioned it. It’s not written about anywhere else in scriptures…

What? Of course people knew what the seat of Moses was from Scripture.
Sitting in a chair is a sign of power, sitting at the right hand of GOD, David’s throne in Scripture, in everyday life who held the “seat of government”, etc.

Moses authority is in recorded in Scripture as he is the one chosen to bring the Ten Commandments down from GOD to his people

Several scriptures you provide are ironic in that Christ is correcting interpretations of scriptures.

Mat 22:29 And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.*

Mar 12:24 And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures nor the power of God?

You say Jesus correcting misinterpretations, but actually Jesus is reprimanding them for not **knowing **the Scripture.

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.
Christ had to explain how the scriptures pointed to Him, because they did not receive it from their interpretation.

John 5
39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Jesus is reprimanding them for not taking Scripture for what it is worth-the Old Testament leads to Jesus-why, who, how and when and therefore salvation.

Luke 24
25He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ** have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

As you quote 1 Corinthians 4:6, you realize he was telling about what he wrote to them and not scriptures, i.e. Old Testament, there was no New Testament at that time. We also know St. Paul wrote:

We had the Gospel at the time of Paul.

Your example of the Bereans has been discussed in this thread. They searched the scriptures to see if what Paul preached to them was true. First came the spoken word of authority, when some of them believed, more believed once they checked the scriptures and even after checking the scriptures, not ALL of them believed.

Not really a good arguement for we have scripture and traditions today and still there are hardened hearts and blind people separated from the TRUTH.

You believe God allowed denominations to be formed? Are all those denominations of the same mind and judgment? Are they in harmony with one another and in one voice glorifying God?

Trinitarian Christians yes, all believe that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the One True GOD and that the Father gave HIS SON to die for us to pay the debt of our sins.

Your use of bind and loose is lost on me. Are you saying we ALL have the power to bind and loose on earth and whatever we decide the Lord will bind and loose in heaven? Of course not! That was in reference to the authority Christ was explaining about His Church.

Ordained ministers of the church who have been ordain after studying Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, at a School of Theology.

You say we can confess our sins to Jesus, as Catholics do in confession. Then you quote John 20:22, where He was specifically and only speaking to His Apostles, the authority He had appointed over His Church. Individually, we have no authority to forgive and retain sins.

You are reading more into the verse then is there. Sorry I should have written the verse in context for you my point was that it was given to all the disciples.**

 

[PRmerger]

We had the Gospel at the time of Paul.

Yes, we had multiple “gospels”–the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of the Nazoreans, signs gospels, the Didache…

It wasn’t until the CC infallibly defined the canon 400 years later that Christians knew with certainty what Gospels were inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

Trinitarian Christians yes, all believe that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the One True GOD and that the Father gave HIS SON to die for us to pay the debt of our sins.

Is that really all that’s required to be a Christian? Do you not need to believe in the Virgin Birth? In loving your neighbor? In following the commandments? That God is LOVE? That we are made in the image and likeness of God? That we each have inherent dignity because of this?

Have you really reduced Jesus’ 3 years of ministry to 2 doctrines? Really, schaick?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We had the Gospel at the time of Paul.

Here are several sources providing estimated times…

•c. 50 I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
•c. 53 Galatians
•c. 55 Romans, I Corinthians,
•c. 57 II Corinthians, James (40 - 60 A.D.)
•c. 60 Mark, Luke, John, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon
•c. 62 I Timothy, II Timothy, Acts, Titus,
•c. 64 I Peter
•c. 66 II Peter
•c. 68 to 80 Hebrews
•c. 90 I John, II John, III John, Jude
•c. 95 Revelation

1 and 2 Thessalonians – A.D. 52 (written from Corinth)
1 Corinthians – A.D. 55 (written from Macedonia)
2 Corinthians – A.D. 56 (written from Macedonia)
Galatians – A.D. 57 (written from Ephesus)
Romans – A.D. 58 (written from Corinth)
Luke – A.D. 59 (written from Caesarea)
Acts – A.D. 60 (written from Rome)
Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon – A.D. 61,62 (written from Rome)
Matthew – A.D. 63 (written from Judea)
Mark – A.D. 63 (written from Rome)
Hebrews – A.D. 64 (written from Jerusalem)
1 Timothy – A.D. 65 (written from Macedonia)
1 Peter – A.D. 65 (written from Babylon)
2 Peter – A.D. 66 (written from unknown)
Titus – A.D. 66 (written from Greece)
Jude – A.D. 67 (written from unknown)
2 Timothy – A.D. 67 (written from Rome)
John – A.D. 85-90 (written from Ephesus)
1 John – A.D. 90-95 (written from Judea)
2 and 3 John – A.D. 90-95 (written from Ephesus)
Revelation – A.D. 90-95 (written from the Isle of Patmos)

Matthew:
A.D. 60-65

Mark:
A.D. 55-65

Luke:
A.D. 60

John:
A.D. 85-90

Acts:
A.D. 63-70

Romans:
A.D. 57

1 Corinthians:
A.D. 55

2 Corinthians:
A.D. 55-57

Galatians:
A.D. 49

Ephesians:
A.D. 60

Philippians:
A.D. 61

Colossians:
A.D. 60

1 Thessalonians:
A.D. 51

2 Thessalonians:
A.D. 51-52

1 Timothy:
A.D. 64

2 Timothy:
A.D. 66/67

Titus:
A.D. 64

Philemon:
A.D. 60

Hebrews:
A.D. 70 (prior to Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70)

James:
A.D. 49 (prior to the Jerusalem council of A.D. 50)

1 Peter:
A.D. 62-64

2 Peter:
A.D. 67

1 John:
A.D. 85-90

2 John:
A.D. 90

3 John:
A.D. 90

Jude:
A.D. 65

Revelation:
A.D. 95

 

[PRmerger]

Have you really reduced Jesus’ 3 years of ministry to 2 doctrines? Really, schaick?

Edit: (not to mention the entire economy of salvation described in the Old Testament)

 

[Javl]

Wrong!

That’s it? A one word answer that means nothing? No explanation? What is he wrong about? It could be you are wrong, did you ever stop to think about that?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[AwGusTeen]

That’s it? A one word answer that means nothing? No explanation? What is he wrong about? It could be you are wrong, did you ever stop to **think **about that?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

"think is the operative word here…

 

[Javl]

"think is the operative word here…

Yep. It takes effort. I wonder what she’s on here for. It certainly isn’t to learn or to dialogue. All she does is give her opinion only and then we’re supposed to agree with it. It is a bit frustrating.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[tweetymom]

Nope. Protestants are missing too many sacraments and too many truths to give them anything close to an even categorical chance of being able to cooperate with grace to overcome concupiscence to attaing to to heaven AND their highest and best crown that God wants for each soul in heaven. But then again Catholics are held to a much higher standard as well so I wouldn’t dare to try to quantify it except in general terms – “not equal”. But this is off topic anyway…

James/QUOTE
This is what I said wrong to. Protestants are not missing out on anything,

 

[pete_29]

CentralFLJames;6189626:

Nope. Protestants are missing too many sacraments and too many truths to give them anything close to an even categorical chance of being able to cooperate with grace to overcome concupiscence to attaing to to heaven AND their highest and best crown that God wants for each soul in heaven. But then again Catholics are held to a much higher standard as well so I wouldn’t dare to try to quantify it except in general terms – “not equal”. But this is off topic anyway…

James

In your opinion tweety.

 

[tweetymom]

tweetymom;6194365:

In your opinion tweety.

A pretty great oponion, I might add.

 

[Javl]

pete 29;6194403:

A pretty great oponion, I might add.

This is what I mean.

Explain yourself and prove it ( or can you? ), as we do for you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[pete_29]

pete 29;6194403:

A pretty great oponion, I might add.

That too is only your opinion

 

[mmmcounts]

On the contrary you do. What I mean is, you have set yourself up to be the authority. This is especially evident when one go out to tell others how they are wrong.

This is something that Catholics bring up very frequently, and I still don’t know why. So I’ll bite. Please tell me precisely what it means to “claim authority” and why it matters so much to you. And please tell me what the main goal of that line of discussion is.

Is it something other than an attempt to justify listening to Catholics and categorically rejecting anything that comes from Protestants? I consistently get the feeling that these sorts of “by what authority?” questions are primarily intended to uphold some form of the genetic fallacy.

That is your choice. I’ve done the same thing on an Assemblies of God website. The biggest difference, I see is, I provided scriptures and explanations of interpretations and I tried to avoid being condescending.

You ever bring that up when Catholics do it? Or is that just something you bring up with Protestants.

The Catholic Church existed first.

By that logic, your next stop should be Judaism.

This thread is full of scriptures and explanations of interpretations, yet you bounce in making assertions with no scriptures or any other supporting resource, other than your opinion and what seems to be an anti-Catholic attitude. I’d like to recommend you try a different approach.

My first couple of posts were extremely source-heavy, they were mostly Catholic sources, and they all had to do with various patristic interpretations of the passage that is the subject of the OP. Seriously, it was something like a 7:1 ratio of quotations to something I said about them. Did you get a look at those posts?

Oh yeahhh…you jumped into the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with you and you didn’t look at the posts that preceded the place at which you jumped in. The clouds roll back and it’s all clear now. From the perspective of one who bounces in like that, I can see why it might seem like I did…that same exact thing.

 

[mmmcounts]

Yes, you seem to understand the absurdity of the Protestant position quite well.

If I were Chad “Esteban” Ochocinco, this is where I’d be saying “Child please.”

The problem that Protestants face is quite different from the horns of the false dilemma you will seek to impale me upon below.

Nice imagery. Hope you don’t have any trouble sitting down after this.

Sola scriptura and sola fide have no basis in scripture (though scriptures are always cited in support of heresies), were not taught by the Apostles and were not held by the ECF’s; thus, they cannot be tied directly to anything that came before.

Protestants will say otherwise, though not to your satisfaction.

But more than this, sola scriptura and sola fide cannot be said to be doctrinal developments because they are counter to what the ancient faith holds on justification and authority.

It was certainly counter to what the CC held to through much of the Middle Ages. And that, in turn, was counter to what the ancient faith held to.

at the end of the day, I don’t think you’ll be able to prove that either doctrine is either Apostolic or a reasonable development of pre-existing doctrine.

At the end of the day, I don’t think you’ll be able to prove that papal infallibility is either Apostolic or a reasonable development of pre-existing doctrine. But by all means, show me what you have. I’ll try to treat it with less disdain than you do when shown the same sort of thing for SS and sola fide.

Papal infallibility, on the other hand, can either be supported from the implications of scripture itself or as a logical extension of previously understood doctrine.

I make the same claim of the core Protestant doctrines. Do you see the parallel? I’m going to be saying a lot of the things you usually say and you’re going to say a lot of the things I usually say. I’ll continue pointing them out as we go.

Well, one thing that won’t be expected of you is a reference to a declared dogma of an infallible Church in support of your non-Catholic opinions.

Yes, that is one thing that won’t survive the transition.

However, before I tackle this, I’d like to clarify one point:

Your objection (in this particular instance) is to the doctrine of papal infallibility as distinct from the infallibility of the Church, corrrect? I want to be sure that we’ve narrowed the scope of the discussion correctly.

Sounds like a good place to narrow it to.

Perhaps you’d like to offer a statement that we can affirm or deny?

I’m a little confused about what you’re asking for here. Let me go back and look at what you were responding to…

Ok, I’m still not entirely clear on that. I’ll give it a shot, though. I’ll affirm this statement: The teaching of papal infallibility is not apostolic, Biblical, patristic, or taught by the ECF’s, nor is it a reasonable development of pre-existing doctrine.

Let’s say the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is…what it currently is; a person who can make authoritative rulings on whether or not a law is Constitutional. He does, in fact, have more authority than any of the other 8 justices. That’s a lot of power, especially for an unelected official. Mr. Roberts is a very important man. A lot of people have to put a great deal of trust in him.

Now let’s suppose a few people start looking back on Supreme Court decisions from, I don’t know, the 18th or 19th centuries. They begin thinking those justices may have been protected from error at that time, even though they didn’t say they were. There was, after all, an authoritative and binding decision made in every case.

A few centuries later, America as a whole has decided that the Supreme Court is able to get together and make infallible statements concerning law and Constitutionality. They further declare that God protected a wide variety of previous Supreme Court rulings ever since the dawn of the American republic, which was obviously at Pentecost just after Jesus named the first Supreme Court chief justice.

Finally, at some point in the 22nd or 23rd centuries, the Supreme Court reveals a split-decision vote determining that the Supreme Court can be infallible under a certain set of conditions that basically amount to “when we say we are, we are.”

Under those circumstances, I don’t think anyone could get away with saying Supreme Court infallibility was a “teaching” of the “Early American Fathers” or that it was a logical extension of the position and responsibilities that are currently held by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I hope you like the story.

 

[mmmcounts]

When the next Protestant arrives into forum and starts pushing sola fide and sola scripture down our throats with an assumed authority

How exactly does one do this “with an assumed authority”? What kinds of words and phrases appear on your computer screen that let you know that’s what they’re doing?

Aside from the things written by you, of course.

By what tradition to you claim that none of the apostles claimed to be priests?

I didn’t say anything about “tradition.” This is all about history. Check this out. books.google.com/books?id=aVMyddU3z1wC&pg=PA472&sig=KqX-ts6vtIHI-mxIcgC0Jm2ScRs&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Papal infallability derives first from the infallability of The Church that was given the divine promise that “The gates of hell would not prevail.”

So you interpret this passage in such a way that you must conclude that if any Magisterium has ever taught anything that is in error, the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against Christ’s Church; therefore, considering Christ’s guarantee and the apparent reality of a church against which the gates of hell have not prevailed, the Magisterium has never taught anything that is in error. Is that something akin to the size and shape of your argument?

If so, I think you know where I’m going with it: This passage does not force you to conclude that the gates of hell prevail against the church if and when it does teach something that is in error. You’ll be looking a long time before you find any Christians outside the CC and EOC that claim infallibility like you do, and these people constitute the clear majority of Christ’s Body, the Church.

Unless you’re suggesting that non-Catholics aren’t actually a part of the Church- and I don’t think you do. What is the official position at this time…These groups of Christians (and they are Christians) are a part of the Body of Christ but are in various levels of imperfect communion with it? I think that sounds about right.

Now here’s my question: Why is it that you draw the line at “fallible Magisterium” and say that constitutes the Gates of Hell Prevailing and It’s All Over, Jesus Must Have Lied, but you look at things like the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and a situation where most of Christ’s Church is not (according to Catholics) in “full communion” with the Body and say “Meh, that’s not what Jesus was talking about”?

It seems like you’ve taken this reference to “The gates of hell prevailing against it” and established a rather arbitrary set of circumstances under which the gates of hell would prevail, and it just so happens to be perfectly tailored to whatever you’re arguing against. I know you think it’s an awesome argument that really stumps Protestants and makes them feel intellectually inadequate, but I think it’s a rather transparent example of eisegesis that doesn’t even attempt to find out the original intent of the person saying those words.

You don’t intend to say or imply that Jesus is a liar do you?

Nope.

The Church is Divinely endowed by God with the sole authority to divin scripture and to protect it from the abuses of error such as you attempt to propagate here for your own purposes.

I’m curious about something. Would you call me a heretic? Remember that heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. Would you say this is an appropriate description of my spiritual situation? What about that of the average Protestant Christian today? What, if anything, does my separation from the Catholic affirmation have to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy?

Do you think God would authorise fallable men to judge a soul into hell by an unjust denial of apostolic forgiveness? Then how so can the Church teach wrong and lead a greater many number of souls to hell?

That passage involving “binding and loosing”…would you mind telling me exactly what that says and how it is that you conclude that Jesus is authorizing His disciples to “judge a soul into hell”?

Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).

We can stop here as sufficient evidence that there was patristic support for papal infallability. Of course you will probably say this was not the whole Church - to which I say The Church’s ongoing perseverance for 2,000 years is ratification that the true faith lived and the gates of hell (and ignorance) did not prevail as you need to assert to make your case.

Bet you didn’t see this coming.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130038

Something to keep in mind- or at least explore a little further- before you toss this quote out there again.

Do you have claim to have a superior historical knowledge? Have you written any books? What is your pedigree? Anyone can make assertions of opinion. Catholic can point to the same chair of Peter as our evidence of apostolic succession and authority and all you seem to be able to point to is our Catholic bible and personal opinions.

The way you talk to Protestants could use a little work. If you happen to find that Protestants consistently hate talking to you, this might not be a credit to your skills as an apologist (or at times, as a polemicist). It might just mean you’re unpleasant to talk to and you need to work on it a little.

 

[schaick]

Yes, we had multiple “gospels”–the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of the Nazoreans, signs gospels, the Didache…

It wasn’t until the CC infallibly defined the canon 400 years later that Christians knew with certainty what Gospels were inspired.

The original writers and their students knew if they were truth and inspired.
You are using Gnostic Scripture to argue that it was the Catholic Church that decided on the Canon? Some 400 years later to tell us what to believe?
Paul mentions the True Gospel that was in use as Scripture at the time:
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Matthew:
A.D. 60-65
Mark:
A.D. 55-65
Luke:
A.D. 60
John:
A.D. 85-90
Paul died around 67AD. All the early Christian leaders at the time knew about these questionable writings, it was the Gospel that we have today that they kept going back to.

Is that really all that’s required to be a Christian? Do you not need to believe in the Virgin Birth? In loving your neighbor? In following the commandments? That God is LOVE? That we are made in the image and likeness of God? That we each have inherent dignity because of this?

Have you really reduced Jesus’ 3 years of ministry to 2 doctrines? Really, schaick?

No, please actually it is you that has taken my answer to the questions:
“You believe God allowed denominations to be formed? Are all those denominations of the same mind and judgment? Are they in harmony with one another and in one voice glorifying God?”
out of context and reduced Jesus ministry.
All Trinitarian Christians believe all the things you mention.
It is confusing to some when we say only protestant Christians which some might lump into the equation Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and any others out there that do not at least believe the very base of what Trinitarian Christians believe.

Edit: (not to mention the entire economy of salvation described in the Old Testament)

Please see answer above.

What? The Old Testament was decided on by the Jewish Nation before Jesus’ time. The Books in the Old Testament were already decided on and in use by the Jews and referenced by Jesus which are the Books that we have in the Holy Bible today.

[just to clarify and not start an off topic discussion, I realize that Catholics have Old Testament Books from Old Testament Apocyrpha in their Bibles]

Exactly. That’s what Jesus told a small group of men who became the leaders of the Catholic Church. This authority was not given to all believers
…
I agree this is evidence of their authority…but you equated that with the forgiveness of sins. Are you saying that priests have this authority?

It is reserved for ordained Minister who had gone to a School of Theology and studied the original Scriptures in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.
Some one said:

Move one comma and see what happens.

Yes the minister must be versed and capable of reading the oldest texts in their original language, which by the way didn’t use commas!! LOL!
I am trying to figure out what the Keys of Heaven mean to Catholics- I keep hearing authority, to bind and loose, to discipline. I believe are the Keys to Heaven and were given to Peter and all the disciples.
Is there anything else? Is it infallibility?

Quote from post above:CC infallibly defined the canon 400 years later that Christians knew with certainty what Gospels were inspired

Infallibilty does not mean that everything a Pope says is infallible. There are things we are at liberty to disagree with the Pope on.

Could doctrines that were formed before the Popes declared themselves infallible be questioned? Is there some kind of grandfather clause?

I thought Catholic Church infallibility came much later and had noting to do with passing on the power to another, simply creating doctrines for the people and that doctrine didn’t come along until much later. 1870.

An important distinction, don’t you think? We should all condemn man-made traditions, but Tradition which is part of the Gospel handed down from the Apostles? No, that we must "hold fast’.

Some Protestant simply don’t believe in the man-made traditions of the Catholic Church. Whether the Keys to Heaven were given to only Peter or all the apostles the Catholic Church has strayed away from strictly Gospel teachings.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is something that Catholics bring up very frequently, and I still don’t know why. So I’ll bite. Please tell me precisely what it means to “claim authority” and why it matters so much to you. And please tell me what the main goal of that line of discussion is.

Christ built a Church upon rock and that rock was Peter. Christ gave authority to His Church, which the majority of Protestant denominations reject. On whose authority do they reject this? Their own authority that they appointed unto themselves.

Is it something other than an attempt to justify listening to Catholics and categorically rejecting anything that comes from Protestants? I consistently get the feeling that these sorts of “by what authority?” questions are primarily intended to uphold some form of the genetic fallacy.

I feel you’re mistaken here. I do not reject anything that comes from Protestants. The Protestant beliefs came through the Catholic Church. It’s just that when the reformation took place, they did not take all the beliefs with them and over time newer established Protestant Churches have left behind even more.

Nowhere in scriptures are we taught to interpret scriptures for ourselves. That is an authority that was assumed by many Protestants. As I explained, Christ established a Church with authority, so we could all be of the same mind and judgement. You cannot say that all Protestant denominations are of the same mind and judgement.

You ever bring that up when Catholics do it? Or is that just something you bring up with Protestants.

I feel bad when anyone uses the tactics of being condescending. I bring it up with people I’m in a discussion with and those are mostly Protestants challenging my beliefs.

By that logic, your next stop should be Judaism.

No, Catholics realize there was a new and everlasting covenant. With that new and everlasting covenant Christ built a Church. It’s just as everlasting as His covenant is.

My first couple of posts were extremely source-heavy, they were mostly Catholic sources, and they all had to do with various patristic interpretations of the passage that is the subject of the OP. Seriously, it was something like a 7:1 ratio of quotations to something I said about them. Did you get a look at those posts?

Yes I looked at the post. I disagree with the interpretation or ‘spin’. The Church has a history of interpretation. I feel as God could inspire His word be written, and preserved through the ages, the all powerful God could protect His truth through a Church He built.

Oh yeahhh…you jumped into the middle of a discussion that had nothing to do with you and you didn’t look at the posts that preceded the place at which you jumped in. The clouds roll back and it’s all clear now. From the perspective of one who bounces in like that, I can see why it might seem like I did…that same exact thing.

Well that’s your opinion. I started the thread and I feel obligated to follow through on threads I start. I do my best to avoid having any kind of a ‘chip’ on my shoulder, but will admit, I am human and prone to make mistakes, especially when the obvious is being spun to fit a theology. We should fit our theology to sriptures and not the other way around.

Scriptures being discussed are fairly straight forward, irregardless of who translated them. It appears the spin comes from those who have a vested interest in it not saying what it does. So many are trying every angle to make something else out of ‘bind and loose’. Just as who the rock is, or what the keys are.