catholic answers forum working4christ speaking in tongues

rcwitness · Aug 29, '13, 5:04 am

What about Mary...or John the Baptist? And remember, Andrew told Peter they found the Christ.

This meeting, in my understanding as a Cat, is a first Council. A question is raised, with the whole body present When everyone has different answers, then Jesus asks,"Who do you (the twelve) say that I am?". Jesus is drawing out a spokesman/leader among them. One who answers the Father's message. And in a sense, one who settles a dispute. Acts 15 "...after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them..."

Then, show them the oracle in Isaiah 22 ...especially vs 22. Jesus is giving His own authority to Peter. He is an equal among the Apostles, but having the representation of them all in his office of holder of the keys. This is very evident throughout the book of Acts. We see how Peter stood up among them and in 9:32 he went here and there among them all. This is universal jurisdiction.

Peace be with you,
Michael

TimothyH · #3 Aug 29, '13, 7:01 am

The study is highly flawed. RC Witness is exactly right.

First of all, Mary was the first Christian.

The study goes on to ignore the obvious conclusion from Mattew that Jesus was removing the Sadduces, Pharisees, scribes and priests from authority and establishing a new authority with Peter as the leader. Matthew 16:18 is a political and juridical statement. Keys to the kingdom refers to the "one over the house" or the prime minister, as Joseph was to Pharoah or as Mordecia was to the King.

Jesus' reference to the keys refers specifically to the statement about leadership in Israel from Isaiah 22.

On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.
(Isaiah 22:20-22)

Jesus summons his servant Peter, thrusts those in charge from their positions of authority, places the keys to the kingdom of David on Peter's shoulders, confers their authority on him, and makes him a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

To say that Matthw 16:18 refers to an ambiguous body of believers ignores the entirety of Old Testament teaching on the nature of kingdoms and ignores the literal sense of what Jesus was saying and what his audience would have understood from his words - Jesus was appointing Peter to the position of Prime Minister and was using an explicit reference to Isaiah 22 to do it.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

It was so clear that Jesus was making a political statemement about the leadership of his kingdom that he stricly ordered them not to talk about it for fear that they would have been executed for treason against the emperor.

The study is very, very weak.

-Tim-

TimothyH · #4 Aug 29, '13, 7:10 am

And Catholicism is not a denomination.

Catholicism is the religion from which all others have de-nominated themselves.

-Tim-

porthos11 · #5 Aug 29, '13, 7:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerB

Yesterday at our Anglican Bible study (which was the final one for me), we talked about Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels in Mark and Luke). Discussion focussed on Matthews rendering, and particularly in the additional words contained therein, which aren't in Mark and Luke.

Interestingly, nobody really disputed that the Rock here was Peter, which somewhat astonished me. The minister read a section from William Barclay's commentary on that passage as food for thought, and I thought I'd ask you for comments on that section read, especially on the highlighted parts. Here it is:

In short, he's saying that Peter was the first Christian, the foundation of Christendom. I don't agree with this interpretation at all, which I made clear that evening, but still thought I'd get some comments from CAF on how best to refute this limited understanding. I mean, surely there is a level in that text in which Peter is the beginning of the Christian people, but I would not argue it to be the prominent, let alone only, meaning.

What do you have to say?

From the looks of it, the reference to the keys were omitted. If you refer back to Isaiah 22 for context on what the keys to the kingdom mean, one would see that it actually refers to a top government office, reporting only to the king.

This is why we never interpret verses in isolation, whether from the immediate context or the entire Bible.

Zachary · #6 Aug 29, '13, 8:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimothyH

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.

(Isaiah 22:20-22)

-Tim-

How strong a statement is that? The world doesn't give the Pope the (what's the word...) honor, respect, reverence he deserves and that Jesus expects us to.

This is as clear a statement as can be. If the Pope declares something true (as Pope, successor of Peter) then God tells us it is true. He didn't say we have to agree or vote or acknowledge, rather that NO ONE can/should oppose.

Any other POV can only be through misunderstanding/misinterpreting God's own word.

MarcoPolo · #7 Aug 29, '13, 9:23 am

In addition to the above replies, I'm also reminded of this exchange:
John 11:24-27 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world."
Martha also recognized Jesus as the Christ. I'm not sure the timeline of when she said this vs. when Peter made his declaration.

Doug S · #8 Aug 30, '13, 6:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimothyH

The study is highly flawed. RC Witness is exactly right.

First of all, Mary was the first Christian.

The study goes on to ignore the obvious conclusion from Mattew that Jesus was removing the Sadduces, Pharisees, scribes and priests from authority and establishing a new authority with Peter as the leader. Matthew 16:18 is a political and juridical statement. Keys to the kingdom refers to the "one over the house" or the prime minister, as Joseph was to Pharoah or as Mordecia was to the King.

Jesus' reference to the keys refers specifically to the statement about leadership in Israel from Isaiah 22.

On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.
(Isaiah 22:20-22)

Jesus summons his servant Peter, thrusts those in charge from their positions of authority, places the keys to the kingdom of David on Peter's shoulders, confers their authority on him, and makes him a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

To say that Matthw 16:18 refers to an ambiguous body of believers ignores the entirety of Old Testament teaching on the nature of kingdoms and ignores the literal sense of what Jesus was saying and what his audience would have understood from his words - Jesus was appointing Peter to the position of Prime Minister and was using an explicit reference to Isaiah 22 to do it.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

It was so clear that Jesus was making a political statemement about the leadership of his kingdom that he stricly ordered them not to talk about it for fear that they would have been executed for treason against the emperor.

The study is very, very weak.

-Tim-

You need to read Isiah 22:15-25
God was fed up with Shebna and threw him out of the land. He then instated Eliakim into authority, because he was honorable. Even still the people of that land were not an honorable people. Therefore he eventually destroyed them.

As for the keys to the kingdom. Are there actually keys? It seem to be more logical to understand that the key to Gods kingdom were the appearing after Jesus resurrection.

John 6:62
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

In this passage Jesus is saying this because they were killing some of the prophets and they will kill some of the apostles.
Luke 11:52
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone on which the churches foundations rest. However the apostles are the foundation on which The church is built up.

Revelation 21:14
14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

It is a faith like the apostles that we should strive for, and there teachings are recorded according to Gods instruction in the scripture. I know that you have traditions and believe that there is more that we need to know. That is great until there is a conflict with the word of God. It is absolutely necessary that the word of God over rule any tradition.

The Lord has given us the knowledge all we must do is put our Faith in him.
May the peace of God be with you.

Todd977 · #9 Aug 31, '13, 2:20 pm

I have no problem viewing Jesus' Church as the New Israel or the New People of God but I think your Anglican pastor missed the mark when he said: "What Jesus said to Peter was: 'Peter, you are the beginning of the new Israel, the new people of the Lord, the new fellowship of those who believe in my name.'"

The imagery of Matthew 16:18 does not suggest that Peter is simply the first living stone among many "living stones...built into a spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5) or, using another metaphor, the first sheep among many sheep to enter Jesus' sheepfold. Rather, Matthew 16:18 suggests that Peter is more like the rock upon which "a wise man built his house...; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock." (Matthew 7:24-25) Peter is no ordinary member of Jesus' Church. In fact, in the imagery of Matthew 16:18, Peter is actually differentiated from Jesus' Church as the rock is differentiated from the house built upon it. Peter was to be the indispensible, living, foundational rock of Jesus' Church; the persistance of Jesus' Church against the powers of hell would directly depend on Peter's infallibility. This theme that Peter's infallibility would prevent the powers of hell from prevailing against Jesus' Church can also be found in Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singlular) that your faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Since Satan unceasingly "prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour" (1 Peter 5:8), there would always be a need for a living individual with Peter's infallibility to prevent the powers of hell from prevailing against Jesus' Church. The obvious question is: Who succeeded to that indispensible office after Peter died? Catholics have an answer; they have always acknowledged the bishop of Rome as Peter's living successor.

CutlerB · #1 Aug 29, '13, 3:33 am

Yesterday at our Anglican Bible study (which was the final one for me), we talked about Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels in Mark and Luke). Discussion focussed on Matthews rendering, and particularly in the additional words contained therein, which aren't in Mark and Luke.

Interestingly, nobody really disputed that the Rock here was Peter, which somewhat astonished me. The minister read a section from William Barclay's commentary on that passage as food for thought, and I thought I'd ask you for comments on that section read, especially on the highlighted parts. Here it is:

Quote:

The second point is that the very word Church (ekklesia...) in this passage conveys something of a wrong impression. We are apt to think of the Church as an institution and an organization with buildings and offices, and services and meetings, and organizations and all kinds of activities. The word that Jesus almost certainly used was qahal (...), which is the word the Old Testament uses for the congregation of Israel, the gathering of the people of the Lord. What Jesus said to Peter was: "Peter, you are the beginning of the new Israel, the new people of the Lord, the new fellowship of those who believe in my name." Peter was the first of the fellowship of believers in Christ. It was not a Church in the human sense, still less a Church in a denominational sense, that began with Peter. What began with Peter was the fellowship of all believers in Jesus Christ, not identified with any Church and not limited to any Church, but embracing all who love the Lord.

In short, he's saying that Peter was the first Christian, the foundation of Christendom. I don't agree with this interpretation at all, which I made clear that evening, but still thought I'd get some comments from CAF on how best to refute this limited understanding. I mean, surely there is a level in that text in which Peter is the beginning of the Christian people, but I would not argue it to be the prominent, let alone only, meaning.

What do you have to say?

rcwitness · #2 Aug 29, '13, 5:04 am

What about Mary...or John the Baptist? And remember, Andrew told Peter they found the Christ.

This meeting, in my understanding as a Cat, is a first Council. A question is raised, with the whole body present When everyone has different answers, then Jesus asks,"Who do you (the twelve) say that I am?". Jesus is drawing out a spokesman/leader among them. One who answers the Father's message. And in a sense, one who settles a dispute. Acts 15 "...after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them..."

Then, show them the oracle in Isaiah 22 ...especially vs 22. Jesus is giving His own authority to Peter. He is an equal among the Apostles, but having the representation of them all in his office of holder of the keys. This is very evident throughout the book of Acts. We see how Peter stood up among them and in 9:32 he went here and there among them all. This is universal jurisdiction.

Peace be with you,
Michael

TimothyH · #3 Aug 29, '13, 7:01 am

The study is highly flawed. RC Witness is exactly right.

First of all, Mary was the first Christian.

The study goes on to ignore the obvious conclusion from Mattew that Jesus was removing the Sadduces, Pharisees, scribes and priests from authority and establishing a new authority with Peter as the leader. Matthew 16:18 is a political and juridical statement. Keys to the kingdom refers to the "one over the house" or the prime minister, as Joseph was to Pharoah or as Mordecia was to the King.

Jesus' reference to the keys refers specifically to the statement about leadership in Israel from Isaiah 22.

On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.
(Isaiah 22:20-22)

Jesus summons his servant Peter, thrusts those in charge from their positions of authority, places the keys to the kingdom of David on Peter's shoulders, confers their authority on him, and makes him a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

To say that Matthw 16:18 refers to an ambiguous body of believers ignores the entirety of Old Testament teaching on the nature of kingdoms and ignores the literal sense of what Jesus was saying and what his audience would have understood from his words - Jesus was appointing Peter to the position of Prime Minister and was using an explicit reference to Isaiah 22 to do it.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

It was so clear that Jesus was making a political statemement about the leadership of his kingdom that he stricly ordered them not to talk about it for fear that they would have been executed for treason against the emperor.

The study is very, very weak.

-Tim-

TimothyH · #4 Aug 29, '13, 7:10 am

And Catholicism is not a denomination.

Catholicism is the religion from which all others have de-nominated themselves.

-Tim-

porthos11 · #5 Aug 29, '13, 7:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerB

Yesterday at our Anglican Bible study (which was the final one for me), we talked about Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels in Mark and Luke). Discussion focussed on Matthews rendering, and particularly in the additional words contained therein, which aren't in Mark and Luke.

Interestingly, nobody really disputed that the Rock here was Peter, which somewhat astonished me. The minister read a section from William Barclay's commentary on that passage as food for thought, and I thought I'd ask you for comments on that section read, especially on the highlighted parts. Here it is:

In short, he's saying that Peter was the first Christian, the foundation of Christendom. I don't agree with this interpretation at all, which I made clear that evening, but still thought I'd get some comments from CAF on how best to refute this limited understanding. I mean, surely there is a level in that text in which Peter is the beginning of the Christian people, but I would not argue it to be the prominent, let alone only, meaning.

What do you have to say?

From the looks of it, the reference to the keys were omitted. If you refer back to Isaiah 22 for context on what the keys to the kingdom mean, one would see that it actually refers to a top government office, reporting only to the king.

This is why we never interpret verses in isolation, whether from the immediate context or the entire Bible.

Zachary · #6 Aug 29, '13, 8:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimothyH

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.

(Isaiah 22:20-22)

-Tim-

How strong a statement is that? The world doesn't give the Pope the (what's the word...) honor, respect, reverence he deserves and that Jesus expects us to.

This is as clear a statement as can be. If the Pope declares something true (as Pope, successor of Peter) then God tells us it is true. He didn't say we have to agree or vote or acknowledge, rather that NO ONE can/should oppose.

Any other POV can only be through misunderstanding/misinterpreting God's own word.

MarcoPolo · #7 Aug 29, '13, 9:23 am

In addition to the above replies, I'm also reminded of this exchange:
John 11:24-27 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world."
Martha also recognized Jesus as the Christ. I'm not sure the timeline of when she said this vs. when Peter made his declaration.

Doug S · #8 Aug 30, '13, 6:16 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimothyH

The study is highly flawed. RC Witness is exactly right.

First of all, Mary was the first Christian.

The study goes on to ignore the obvious conclusion from Mattew that Jesus was removing the Sadduces, Pharisees, scribes and priests from authority and establishing a new authority with Peter as the leader. Matthew 16:18 is a political and juridical statement. Keys to the kingdom refers to the "one over the house" or the prime minister, as Joseph was to Pharoah or as Mordecia was to the King.

Jesus' reference to the keys refers specifically to the statement about leadership in Israel from Isaiah 22.

On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.
(Isaiah 22:20-22)

Jesus summons his servant Peter, thrusts those in charge from their positions of authority, places the keys to the kingdom of David on Peter's shoulders, confers their authority on him, and makes him a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

To say that Matthw 16:18 refers to an ambiguous body of believers ignores the entirety of Old Testament teaching on the nature of kingdoms and ignores the literal sense of what Jesus was saying and what his audience would have understood from his words - Jesus was appointing Peter to the position of Prime Minister and was using an explicit reference to Isaiah 22 to do it.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

It was so clear that Jesus was making a political statemement about the leadership of his kingdom that he stricly ordered them not to talk about it for fear that they would have been executed for treason against the emperor.

The study is very, very weak.

-Tim-

You need to read Isiah 22:15-25
God was fed up with Shebna and threw him out of the land. He then instated Eliakim into authority, because he was honorable. Even still the people of that land were not an honorable people. Therefore he eventually destroyed them.

As for the keys to the kingdom. Are there actually keys? It seem to be more logical to understand that the key to Gods kingdom were the appearing after Jesus resurrection.

John 6:62
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

In this passage Jesus is saying this because they were killing some of the prophets and they will kill some of the apostles.
Luke 11:52
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone on which the churches foundations rest. However the apostles are the foundation on which The church is built up.

Revelation 21:14
14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

It is a faith like the apostles that we should strive for, and there teachings are recorded according to Gods instruction in the scripture. I know that you have traditions and believe that there is more that we need to know. That is great until there is a conflict with the word of God. It is absolutely necessary that the word of God over rule any tradition.

The Lord has given us the knowledge all we must do is put our Faith in him.
May the peace of God be with you.

Todd977 · #9 Aug 31, '13, 2:20 pm

I have no problem viewing Jesus' Church as the New Israel or the New People of God but I think your Anglican pastor missed the mark when he said: "What Jesus said to Peter was: 'Peter, you are the beginning of the new Israel, the new people of the Lord, the new fellowship of those who believe in my name.'"

The imagery of Matthew 16:18 does not suggest that Peter is simply the first living stone among many "living stones...built into a spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5) or, using another metaphor, the first sheep among many sheep to enter Jesus' sheepfold. Rather, Matthew 16:18 suggests that Peter is more like the rock upon which "a wise man built his house...; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock." (Matthew 7:24-25) Peter is no ordinary member of Jesus' Church. In fact, in the imagery of Matthew 16:18, Peter is actually differentiated from Jesus' Church as the rock is differentiated from the house built upon it. Peter was to be the indispensible, living, foundational rock of Jesus' Church; the persistance of Jesus' Church against the powers of hell would directly depend on Peter's infallibility. This theme that Peter's infallibility would prevent the powers of hell from prevailing against Jesus' Church can also be found in Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singlular) that your faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Since Satan unceasingly "prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour" (1 Peter 5:8), there would always be a need for a living individual with Peter's infallibility to prevent the powers of hell from prevailing against Jesus' Church. The obvious question is: Who succeeded to that indispensible office after Peter died? Catholics have an answer; they have always acknowledged the bishop of Rome as Peter's living successor.

TimothyH · #10 Aug 31, '13, 7:11 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug S

You need to read Isiah 22:15-25
God was fed up with Shebna and threw him out of the land. He then instated Eliakim into authority, because he was honorable. Even still the people of that land were not an honorable people. Therefore he eventually destroyed them.

As for the keys to the kingdom. Are there actually keys? It seem to be more logical to understand that the key to Gods kingdom were the appearing after Jesus resurrection.

John 6:62
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

In this passage Jesus is saying this because they were killing some of the prophets and they will kill some of the apostles.
Luke 11:52
52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone on which the churches foundations rest. However the apostles are the foundation on which The church is built up.

Revelation 21:14
14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

It is a faith like the apostles that we should strive for, and there teachings are recorded according to Gods instruction in the scripture. I know that you have traditions and believe that there is more that we need to know. That is great until there is a conflict with the word of God. It is absolutely necessary that the word of God over rule any tradition.

The Lord has given us the knowledge all we must do is put our Faith in him.
May the peace of God be with you.

Again, just as the study in the original post, you are ignoring social and political realities as they were in the Old Testament and at the time of Jesus.

Every king had a prime minister. The prime minister literally held the key to the treasury and would make payments needed to get things done - pay soldiers in the army to fight, pay workmen to build cites and roads, etc. The prime minister had a title which I believe was "ol bith." I could be mistaken. It might be something like el ha biet. Whatever it was, it meant one who is over the house.

Joseph is set over the house of Pharaoh in Genesis 41.

And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is? And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.(Genesis 41:38-45 RSV)

Mordecai is set over the house of Haman and became the King's right-hand man.

And the king took off his ring, which he had taken from Haman, and gave it unto Mordecai. And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman. And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a garment of fine linen and purple: and the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad. The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honour. (Esther 8:2,15-16 KJV)

For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to all his seed. (Esther 10:2-3 KJV)

This is the basis for Jesus' statement that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom. Such would have been immediately recognizable as a political statement, as an appointing of a prime minister. Those who heard it would have understood it immediately as an appointment of Peter to the position of Prime Minister in the kingdom that was to come.

The first step in understanding scripture is to understand the literal sense - what the heck the people were actually saying. Only when we correctly understand the literal sense can we begin to hope to understand the spiritual senses. That Jesus was appointing a prime minister would have been crystal clear to those who lived under monarchies and were used to such terminology.

-Tim-

Abu · #11 Sep 1, '13, 2:18 am

Quote:

Doug S #8
It is a faith like the apostles that we should strive for, and there teachings are recorded according to Gods instruction in the scripture. I know that you have traditions and believe that there is more that we need to know. That is great until there is a conflict with the word of God. It is absolutely necessary that the word of God over rule any tradition.

The error here is to ignore Christ who wrote nothing and established His Church in, with and through His Apostles who then committed His teaching to Sacred Scripture which reveals that the primacy of Peter and the Bishops of Rome was recognised from the beginning of Christ’s Church and infallibility in doctrine was accepted from the beginning also – possessed by His Church – “He who hears you, hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16). [See Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16-17, 26; Jn 16:13].

All four promises to Peter alone:
"You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church." (Mt 16:18)
"The gates of hell will not prevail against it."(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven." (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve]

Sole authority to Peter:
"Strengthen your brethren." (Lk 22:32)
"Feed My sheep."(Jn 21:17).

Firmly and irrevocably given to us by the Sacred Scripture written by His followers in His Church.

Having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20)

PJM · #12 Sep 1, '13, 1:06 pm

Quote:

=CutlerB;11148064]Yesterday at our Anglican Bible study (which was the final one for me), we talked about Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels in Mark and Luke). Discussion focussed on Matthews rendering, and particularly in the additional words contained therein, which aren't in Mark and Luke.

Interestingly, nobody really disputed that the Rock here was Peter, which somewhat astonished me. The minister read a section from William Barclay's commentary on that

In short, he's saying that Peter was the first Christian, the foundation of Christendom. I don't agree with this interpretation at all, which I made clear that evening, but still thought I'd get some comments from CAF on how best to refute this limited understanding. I mean, surely there is a level in that text in which Peter is the beginning of the Christian people, but I would not argue it to be the prominent, let alone only, meaning.

What do you have to say?

This is a VERY poor and quite limited understanding:

READ John 21:13-17 AFFIRMATION of Peters Leadership by Christ

Also I have a doc showing 50 Peter bible first: here's an edited section

50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PETRINE PRIMACY AND THE PAPACY

1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . ."

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

36. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" (2:36) - an example of "binding and loosing."

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet
5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this

kentuckyliz · #13 Sep 2, '13, 10:10 am

I would like to recommend an amazing little book by Fr. Stanley Jaki, published by Christendom Press, that looks at Jesus' use of geography in teaching this message. They were standing at the rock cliff face at Caesarea Phillipi which served as a temple to Pan, on top of which was a large white marble temple to Caesar, built by Herod. There was a bottomless pit in the cave that no sounding line found the floor of, which was believed to be the gates of Hell.

Why did Jesus make his apostles walk 25 miles up to Caesarea Phillipi to deliver this message? The significance of this place is often overlooked in exegesis and Fr. Jaki discusses the exegetical history and the sometimes overt effort by Protestant interpreters to ignore this aspect. (Even by those who visited the place and drew it much smaller than what it really was.)

Fr. Jaki also discusses that the name Rock in the OT was ever used for God, and here, Jesus is naming Simon bar Jona "Kepha" (Rock in Aramaic). This too is amazing.

http://www.amppubgroup.com/press/chr...two-covenants/

bill99 · #14 Sep 7, '13, 9:56 am

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
•Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
•2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
•Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
•Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
•Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.

PJM · #15 Sep 7, '13, 4:03 pm

Quote:

=bill99;11177652]Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.
•Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
•2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
•Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
•Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
•Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself.

Hi Bill, and THANKS fo joining us

There are TWO Infallible rules for right understanding of the Bible my friend.

1.2 Tim. 3:16 What the bible TEACHES must be God’s truth
And the 2nd. Mt. 4:4 And the entire bible MUST be used

“Never, can. May or DOES one
Verse; passage or teaching
Make void, invalidate or override another
Verse, passage or teaching”

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I [GOD] say to thee: That thou art Peter; and [YOU this] upon this rock I will build my church, [SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I [GOD] will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven”

Eph 2: 19-20 “Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone”

Jn. 21: 16-17 Jesus & Peter “He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

WAS this understood by the others? Undoubtedly and historically provable

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

I have a document with 50 bible Peter FIRST that also supports these facts.

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results
Result of search for "Cephas": 2786. Kephas kay-fas' of Chaldee origin (compare 3710); the Rock; Cephas (i.e. Kepha), a surname of Peter:--Cephas.

There is more than this, but this makes the point.

God Bless you an please KEEP learning!

catholic answers forum working4christ speaking in tongues

Monday, September 9, 2013

What is a rude awakening?

FAQs

What is a rude awakening?

What does it mean to afflict ones soul as in Leviticus 23:27?

Where can I buy the clothes you wear on your television program?

Are women meant to wear head coverings all the time or only in worship and prayer?

List of biblically clean and unclean foods

Where can I buy the clothes you wear on your television program?

Is is okay for a woman to wear tzit tzit on the belt loops of her jeans?

Are we to celebrate Hanukkah instead of Christmas?

What are the Biblical requirements for mikveh regarding the water used and the need for witnesses?

Does John contradict Luke regarding whether the Last Supper was the Passover meal?

How does one remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

How do we have a restful Shabbat while traveling miles to a fellowship or being a part of a large celebration like you put on for the feasts?

Does your crew work on the Sabbath to produce Shabbat Night Live?

In Matthew chapter 1, is Joseph the husband of Mary or the father of Mary?

What is the Biblical instruction on tithing, and is it for us today?

When will the Astronomically and Agriculturally Corrected Biblical Calendar ship?

catholic answers forum 4 dummies "What Jesus said to Peter was: 'Peter, you are the beginning of the new Israel, the new people of the Lord, the new fellowship of those who believe in my name.'"

WHAT Authority can one claim the right to Interpret Scripture working4christ2 catholic answers 4 dummies

wake up and smell the coffei– WHAT Authority can one claim the right to Interpret Scripture— working4christ2– catholic answers forum 4 dummies

By WHAT Authority can one claim the right to Interpret Scripture

Share this:

Like this:

Post navigation

0 comments to By WHAT Authority can one claim the right to Interpret Scripture

Is there a specific day to worship? Q&A with Michael Rood

The error here is to ignore Christ who wrote nothing and established His Church

Peter only the first Christian?--There are TWO Infallible rules for right understanding of the Bible my friend.

Monday, September 9, 2013

What is a rude awakening?

FAQs

What is a rude awakening?

What does it mean to afflict ones soul as in Leviticus 23:27?

Where can I buy the clothes you wear on your television program?

Are women meant to wear head coverings all the time or only in worship and prayer?

What version of the scriptures do you recommend?

List of biblically clean and unclean foods

Where can I buy the clothes you wear on your television program?

Is is okay for a woman to wear tzit tzit on the belt loops of her jeans?

Are we to celebrate Hanukkah instead of Christmas?

What are the Biblical requirements for mikveh regarding the water used and the need for witnesses?

Does John contradict Luke regarding whether the Last Supper was the Passover meal?

How does one remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

How do we have a restful Shabbat while traveling miles to a fellowship or being a part of a large celebration like you put on for the feasts?

Does your crew work on the Sabbath to produce Shabbat Night Live?

In Matthew chapter 1, is Joseph the husband of Mary or the father of Mary?

What is the Biblical instruction on tithing, and is it for us today?

When will the Astronomically and Agriculturally Corrected Biblical Calendar ship?

catholic answers forum 4 dummies "What Jesus said to Peter was: 'Peter, you are the beginning of the new Israel, the new people of the Lord, the new fellowship of those who believe in my name.'"

WHAT Authority can one claim the right to Interpret Scripture working4christ2 catholic answers 4 dummies

Share this:

Like this:

Post navigation

0 comments to By WHAT Authority can one claim the right to Interpret Scripture

Is there a specific day to worship? Q&A with Michael Rood

The error here is to ignore Christ who wrote nothing and established His Church

Peter only the first Christian?--There are TWO Infallible rules for right understanding of the Bible my friend.