Posted on 05/10/2006 8:05:29 AM PDT by Pokey78
3. The exegesis you describe makes no sense with the rest of the verse, which is clearly granting power to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth will be held bound in heaven, etc.
If Peter was the only one to receive the keys, was he the only one to bind and loose? Because we know the other Apostles demonstrated this power, we can reason that Jesus hands these powers to His followers, not just Peter.
The testimony of the Holy Spirit is the keys to heaven for it leads us to the Door, aka Jesus Christ. Rejecting the Holy Spirit's testimony regarding Salvation through Christ, also just happens to be the only unforgivable sin.
I think that the passages in John and Paul that seem to suggest that Jesus is God are more properly viewed as attempts to express the idea that Jesus existed eternally in the Divine Plan and in the Divine Mind; some passages may also suggest that Jesus pre-existed his earthly state, but was nonetheless a creature of God - "the Firstborn of Creation" or as God's regent and representative on earth. Then, after the resurrection and ascention (which I don't deny), Jesus' closeness to God began to be expressed in terms suggestive of worship. In my view, Paul and John are both expressing highly esoteric and complex doctrines - Jesus as the Second Adam, and so forth - which were easily, and perhaps inevitably, misunderstood as saying that Jesus was God.
22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve
22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Nope. That would be mentioning sin. They don't care to dwell on that little detail.
Luke, for anyone who is not sure.
Lol, yes thanks.
The Gnostics loved sex. They blamed it on their sinful bodies, therefore they weren't responsible for their deviancy.
Too late! Your nick is one.
I've read that book! I was completely disgusted!
I recently read Anne Rice's book about Jesus as a child. It was interesting.
It's the "cat out of the bag" principle. You can't boycott things any more, so you assume the ideas in the book will be well known and wide spread across the population. Therefore, if it comes up in conversation, expecially with nonbelievers, it is best to already have debunking material at hand or in mind.
It's much more worrisome that someone who DOESN'T read the Bible will buy into it. Believers should know better. :)
nice!
Was the name of that The Third Secret?,/i> I threw the darn thing away and can't remember for sure. The first book that the author wrote was The Romanov Conspiracy and that was fairly good. I was SO disappointed and angered by that Fatima book!
Ar--ur Dan Brown was forc-d in-o wri-ing analogously, du- to -is missing c-r-ain k-ys on -is k-yboard.
analogously = anar--rously
Well put. Though, in the interest of accuracy, you might refine the thought to read:
I think that liberals are responding to a sanitizedIDEAFEELING of Gnosticism, rather than to the real thing.
True, they seemed to sail through "The Passover Conspiracy", (I think that was the name,) with much more equanimity.
Great post.
I haven't read "Code" but doesn't he say that ancient Jews believed Shekhina and Jehovah were doing the deed with each other?
Sick stuff. But I've heard the expression, "Mary, spouse of the Holy Spirit."
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.