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.

catholic answers forum working4christ speaking in tongues

Monday, September 9, 2013

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.'"

No comments:

Post a Comment