Ah HA!!!
Posted on 09/26/2015 8:01:14 AM PDT by lqcincinnatus
Sometimes even ELSIE doesn't!!
BD1; Please give BD2 a break; for he (she? it?) has only been around since 1999
Anyone who knew more than a smidgen about Mormonism would KNOW that things like the 'list' are NOT revealed to mere GENTILES.
Short term memory loss is one symptom of...
If it had been THESE two; the goats would have welcomed them with open, uh..., arms.
They just LOVE cereal!
That's what the Halloween kids who show up for our annual party give them to munch on.
I see quite a bit like that on FR and have received similar. I choose not to respond.
Your "facts" are of subjective origin. It is closed loop doctrine of willful misinterpretation as bad as the Catholic spin of "on this rock I will found my Church." The Father hasn't changed, nor is He fond of legalisms and excuses. The principles He taught work without spatial constraint. We are taught to follow Messiah regardless of where we live and implement those ancient Mosaic teachings to the best of our ability, with the faith that to do will bring us closer to the actual first commandment in Genesis 1:28, as a glory to Him.
Now, does that mean I'm picking up a tent to go to Jerusalem tonight? No. I don't have that capability right now, but I hope to do so at least once in my life. It's how things are in a world of sin.
Do I expect you to buy what I'm telling you? No. I'm quite certain you are happy with your "facts." I'm still learning and studying, and don't depend upon proxies to know it all.
What does the Bible tell us?
What is "the key of the House of David?"
In the Davidic Kingdom, the office of the king's vizier (or palace administrator, or vice-regent) was the second most powerful office in the kingdom, next to that of the king.
In Isaiah 22, we see the transfer of office from one vizier to the next, from Eliakim to Shebna. The office was represented by a robe, sash, and over-sized key which the vizier wore around his neck. In the king's absence or incapacity, the vizier, or master of the palace, acted as king. (2 Kings 15:5).
The New Testament (Rev. 3:7) tells us that Jesus sits on David's throne, and is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom --Christ's Church.
In Matthew 16, Jesus establishes His Church and the office of Vizier, giving the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”"Binding and loosing" was a well-established term in the OT, meaning ultimate ecclesiastical authority.
If you don't believe me, look it up.
I leave you with the following verses that should, at the very least, engender some curiosity about the role of the Vizier and Peter's position in Christ's Church.
Isaiah 22;22I 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.Matthew 16:19
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”Rev. 3:7
“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this:
“‘The holy one, the true,
who holds the key of David,
who opens and no one shall close,
who closes and no one shall open,
OUTSTANDING, I will read with interest.
Didn’t Jim already warn you about stalking?
Oh??
God said (to the Israelites) that all debts were to be erased every SEVEN (7) years.
It doesn't put the keys into the bishop of Rome's hands, as in having that one office then regulate who else has the same binding and loosening authority, as far as the Lord Himself is concerned.
What was bestowed upon Peter in Matthew 16, was a short time later (Matthew 18:18) given directly also by Christ Himself to the rest of the disciples, using the same terminology of binding and loosing which was used in chapter 16.
That still leaves the office of singular papacy itself, as that is known of and regarded with the RCC, most particularly in much of the theological baggage which has become accumulated around the very idea of that 'office', to being nonconforming to Scripture, and not found in the history of the early church either.
Would you care for me to go over this in greater detail?
I can do that.
What is highly irritating here is that when I first addressed you on this thread, it was concerning your own misuse/misapplication of Matthew 18:17, but which you did not attribute to where in Scripture that was from, or what translation/version you were citing from) when you did so.
The very next verse in Matthew 18 does away with the idea that these "keys" in regard to binding and loosening, were given "most chiefly" or something, to Peter alone, and that *something* means that Peter was the head of the church, etc., and then later the church of Rome began to claim that their church, and none other, was the one which would alone inherit the "universal' bishopric of (over all other) bishops, and that all owed that one bishop some form of unilateral submission and allegiance not afforded everyone else within the church.
It is not an issue of Rome being "the" authority, or else there is no ecclesiastical authority whatsoever.
That is much the false dichotomy which you presented in your own comment #77, this thread. Which is the comment to which I first addressed you here on this thread.
We've had this nearly identical conversation many times in the past.
It is becoming tiresome.
Unable to disprove my own assertions, each time you then shift to some other aspect of argument, in continuing attempt to assert the Latin Church is the OTC®.
At least that is what I get the impression you are trying to say...
I could go through this latest portion of apologetic with a finer comb, but have already done away with the middling portion well enough that the entire argument (which I suspect you've obtained from some Romanist apologist, and more or less copy/paste onto these pages) fails to make things to be that Rome Alone is the one and only 'holy' church, blah, blah, blah.
You may want to go to the Scriptures though, instead of just copying from some apologetic page or website.
Revelation 3:7 does not read as you presented it. You left out a large sentence fragment.
That was not addressed to the the church at Rome, or any 'angel' of that church either, if one were to desire to see the 'angel' being written to as being an overseer of the church in Philadelphia, rather than the more entire church there, including elders & presbyters, etc. I've seen that sort of argument too.
What does that have to do with the church in Rome, and that church's bishop?
The presentation fails to make the connection, and that connection (for there may well enough be place for that to be instructive to those of the Latin Church, as well as all the rest at the same time) to be due to Rome, Alone, and for that church to be over and above all the rest, as Rome still continues to assert that things were established by Christ to be, when it was not that way much at all.
Argument of there being only One church don't really work when one just cited passages concerning 7 spirits and 7 churches which were being addressed, not when it is attempted to be asserted at the same time that the earthly headquarters of the 'one holy church' are at Rome, and all are under that one bishop.
But like a snake, that's where the argument always goes, slithering back to the falsehood of singular earthly 'papacy' over all, even to the ends of the earth.
Perhaps you'd care to closely address the OP (article) of this thread?
Here it is again, this time not from 'virtueonline' but from where that site sourced and linked to;
Phillip Melancthon, and the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald in 1537 laid it out rather succinctly.
All the Romish blathering in the world cannot defeat the truth. Why even attempt it? To do so goes against God Himself.
There must be another way. Find that, and you will find true treasure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.