Posted on 09/29/2001 7:49:58 PM PDT by malakhi
I have no argument with the CathEn or with Augustine and other Church fathers. They saw what they saw and used the passage for certain points. This does not mean that the Scripture can not also be used to make other points. Not everything every father wrote is infallible.
The fact remains that, yes, we can say that the keys are useful for opening and closing Heaven. But that's not all they are good for.
Your tradition stops there. Mine does not. The keys symbolize a complete transfer of power to the handling of all affairs on this earth. Not just in opening and closing the gates of heaven, not just in binding and loosing.
SD
Mt 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28. Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Should I go back in the threads and see what your answer was the last time, or do you have a new one?
If I remember correctly, there is no 'St. Peter's throne'. The one they claimed to be his throne for ages dates back only to the 9th century. So much for that idea huh? LOL.
You speak of the keys as though they were something physical. They are not, they are truths. The truths are that man must be saved in order to have the kingdom of heaven available to them (1) and (2) Once saved, only through obedience is eternal life in heaven granted. These were taught to the Apostles and spread to every man. Those are the keys. It's pretty straight forward. But you have to be interested in knowing the truth rather than pursuing a carnal agenda to get that.
The test of this is in the ministry. Paul teaches these in his epistles and letters quite plainly. That is all the more evidence needed. If he didn't have them, he wouldn't be able to teach them.
Did you ever see the episode of Seinfeld where Kramer was helping himself to Jerry's apartment too often and Jerry had to revoke his status as "keeper of the backup keys"?
The problem here is, there is no such thing as a set of backup keys. Each person has them, or they don't. It's that simple. Black or white, true or false. Those are the glasses through which this issue is seen by God. Jesus said no man comes to the father but through Jesus. One has to believe in him and accept him as their savior - confessing him as Lord - this is the foundation and the first key. Then through obedience and following Jesus, the promise of eternal life is attained - the second key. One can give these away, yet still have them. But if one throws them away, they'll never again find them.
There is a lesson to be learned in understanding the simple, natural, implication of what it means to entrust one with "the keys."
People aren't entrusted with them, they are given or they are not. The trust is on our side, we have to take them in faith and hold them dear.
When one has to stretch the normal meaning of Scripture to meet a preconceived notion, what do we call it?
Catholocism?
I just finished reading this whole story, and I found my self-rooting for you guys several times when you had the ball on the 10 yard line and fumbled it.
I think it was sad and pathetic at what time and money you have invested and at what lengths your Church has gone to, hoping to find proof that Peter was in Rome, and in the hopes of legitimizing your claim.
This article more then any other is convincing proof that you have absolutely nothing going in your favor that even suggest Peter was somehow connected to the Catholic Church.
All you lurkers should read this story, and don't think you have any conclusions formed until you have finished the whole thing. It’s really sad. ;-(
Tehillim (Psalm) 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Saviour!
Tehillim (Psalm) 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'
Tehillim (Psalm) 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer
XeniaSt
Nonetheless, I am sure there are ex-Catholics out there that say that, and worse. Actually,there are probably pew warmers who still consider themselves Catholic and would say the same thing.In fact,some of them pay so little attention they may not realize that the Mass is no longer in Latin because occasionally when they wake up at Church they may hear a Gloria or an Agnus Dei for 60 seconds. That is why I keep current on what the Pope says,know when my Bishop is listening to him and pay no attention to what the Bishop says unless he is in union with Rome which he is 70% of the time. Well, thats not really true since I correspond with him quite often on that 30% and with our Catholic paper as well as the pastor of my own church. I am sure they are all delighted to hear from me.(smiley face)
With respect to your last paragraph about talking to people about Jesus or the Bible after Mass. I am thinking that you are probably not correct because they have been hearing some interesting interpretations in homilies and catechism and I will say no more for fear of offending a whole new group of readers in addition to those I have already rubbed wrong.
Nonetheless, I am sure there are ex-Catholics out there that say that, and worse. Actually,there are probably pew warmers who still consider themselves Catholic and would say the same thing.In fact,some of them pay so little attention they may not realize that the Mass is no longer in Latin because occasionally when they wake up at Church they may hear a Gloria or an Agnus Dei for 60 seconds. That is why I keep current on what the Pope says,know when my Bishop is listening to him and pay no attention to what the Bishop says unless he is in union with Rome which he is 70% of the time. Well, thats not really true since I correspond with him quite often on that 30% and with our Catholic paper as well as the pastor of my own church. I am sure they are all delighted to hear from me.(smiley face)
With respect to your last paragraph about talking to people about Jesus or the Bible after Mass. I am thinking that you are probably not correct because they have been hearing some interesting interpretations in homilies and catechism and I will say no more for fear of offending a whole new group of readers in addition to those I have already rubbed wrong.
Nonetheless, I am sure there are ex-Catholics out there that say that, and worse. Actually,there are probably pew warmers who still consider themselves Catholic and would say the same thing.In fact,some of them pay so little attention they may not realize that the Mass is no longer in Latin because occasionally when they wake up at Church they may hear a Gloria or an Agnus Dei for 60 seconds. That is why I keep current on what the Pope says,know when my Bishop is listening to him and pay no attention to what the Bishop says unless he is in union with Rome which he is 70% of the time. Well, thats not really true since I correspond with him quite often on that 30% and with our Catholic paper as well as the pastor of my own church. I am sure they are all delighted to hear from me.(smiley face)
With respect to your last paragraph about talking to people about Jesus or the Bible after Mass. I am thinking that you are probably not correct because they have been hearing some interesting interpretations in homilies and catechism and I will say no more for fear of offending a whole new group of readers in addition to those I have already rubbed wrong.
Alright already, I believe you, please stop posting, uncle.:-)Lol
You need to look at 16:19 again, this is not keys (period) [Capital A] And. The conjunctive is a continuation of the thought, not the beginning of a new thought. In fact, I just read through three different standards - all seem to have a colon punctuating the line to show this intended meaning right before the [small 'a'] and.. Hmm. I suppose some of us can understand what we read. Even going back to the greek, the structure does not end the thought after the giving of the keys and begin a new thought, the binding and loosing flows from the keys. Wow, backs up what I was saying before - and If you bind yourself on earth, you will be bound in heaven, if you loose yourself on earth, you will be loosed in heaven. If you haven't taken the keys, you have bound yourself. But if you take the keys you loose yourself - hence the meaning of being set free. The keys have to do with authority over oneself - Wow, something else continued to be preached by the Apostles that is right in line with this: Personal responsibility. Paul beats that horse to death then, resurrects it and kills it again repeatedly. It's an abused animal because it must be. Paul said be masters of your selves, in control of every thought and word. The same is echoed by the others.
Again, the weight of this is evident to those who understand the points that are trying to be conveyed. They are Awesome beyond belief when you aren't twisting them to rob them of their meaning. Once you rob them by construing something else of them, the significance is entirely lost. When you rob context you do the same thing.
And just a trivia Question for you. If Matthew 16:18 says what you say it does, can you tell me why two different editions of the Greek new testament taken off the original texts do not Capitolize the p in petros? It would seem that if the name was intended a proper name in the text, the original would have been capitolized as all Proper names in the entire chapter around this verse uses caps. Just an interesting question. Not sure it means anything, but, it certainly would seem to. LOL. I caught this while comparing Zondervans Parallel to one of my Greek new testaments. Just kind of lept out at me.
No, I have stated before that I believe that the Bible is theopneustos (God-breathed). It is inspired.
One should note that this does not claim infallibility for the printers or translators of the Bible as God did not inspire them. A typo in a KJV printed in 1993 does not mean the Bible is not inspired. Similarly, when God formed his church, he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I do not see a promise that He would protect it from error. So just as God's inspired Scriptures are subject to errors of humans, so is his Church subject to errors of humans. Does that mean that we're all hopelessly bound for hell? Nope. Just that we're all hopelessly fallible, even a Pope.
First, there is documentation of a shrine on that graveyard that the Catholicism was aware of when they constructed the Vat around that self same shrine. It was also known very widly that the hill, as you admitted, is a graveyard that was used both for the upperclass and the slaves of the circus. That upperclass burials took place there is documented fact.
The next and probably more obvious thing is that the Apostles were not men of finery, they were men of necessity. They were taught by Jesus to be that way. I was not aware of this fact before, but it would tend more to deny your claim rather than to support it. Fine clothe was an extravegance. Purples in those days were very costly as it was tough to produce a purple that didn't fade. Paint makers, dye makers and even glass makers will tell you the same story across the board, certain colors are difficult to do properly. The expense arises when applying it to an already expensive clothe. Refine it into a garment and it is more expensive yet. In many cases, you'll find the same thing true today, real silk is highly expensive still. Try going out and pricing some good crushed velvet. The Apostles would have been hard pressed to afford such a garment.
It's an interesting work of fiction. It is so full of unsupported claims that the only thing holding it together is the few pieces of scripture it quotes. There are many things to find fault with if someone is going to take it seriously.
One, there is no support for the claim of I Peter or II Peter being written in Rome.
Two, there is no support for an argument that left Peter and Paul not talking to each other - I've been asking for such evidence since my early arguments on these threads. Such evidence has never been presented. It's an assumption.
Three, the statement about the man on the run is just absolutely hilarious given the fact that many times the Apostles used their underlings to carry messages to other communities. One can see this employed in several books of the new testament writings. There is no covert operation hidden between the lines.
There are so many statements made 'it is sade' or 'some say' that the holes in the swiss cheese are so much mor voluminous than the substance that it could barely be called cheese.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch who wrote this; but, if I were grading it as a fiction piece it might be worth something. If I were grading it on it's ability to link fact and conclusions, it'd be an F paper. And this is just based on a seven paragraphs in. I'll read the rest later when My stomache is stronger.
This statement comes from one who comes from Catholicism. You can't be serious. Did I not just read an example of the Catholic church's printed conclusions about an unreported power struggle between Peter and Paul. It isn't documented anywhere in history - nowhere, yet movies have been made on this fiction. Can't have it both ways. I would have to say there is absolutely no evidence of a power struggle occuring. You guys seem to find the story neccessary to explain away the silence between Peter and Paul in I & II Peter. The silence is more understandable when one looks at the fact that Paul sent Timothy after Mark outside of Italy In II Timothy, and at the same time of that writing by dating of the documents, I Peter is written and Mark is with Peter. Simple math. If Mark is not in Italy and Mark is with Peter, Peter is not in Italy - Much less Rome. And the last time Sylvanus was documented to be with Paul was 10 years prior. He's with Peter too - not in Rome.
Then there is the problem with Common usage of Rome being referred to as Babylon. Common usage cannot be shown until after the Writing of Revelation. Revelation, as it is told us by the writer, is Prophecy delivered to the writer from God. And Revelation was written 31 years after The Catholic Church Says Peter Died. If the first usage didn't occur until 31 years after Peter's death, And the next example of it happened 35 years after his death, it cannot be claimed that common usage existed for Peter to employ. And knowing that Paul's visitors were free to come and go as they pleased though they were great in Christ - it also begs belief that Peter should have to Hide in Rome. If Mark can waltz in and out, Timothy can waltz in and out, Osineas, etc, etc, etc for years. Peter would hardly have to hide himself. What nonsense.
Peter had no reason to be coy about telling anyone where he was. He wrote from where he said he wrote - Babylon. We know for a fact that there were two cities of that name in existance at the time. And the size of the city hardly matters to it's worth to visit. It was known to have included Jewish settlements early on dating from the time of the Babylonian captivity. Even the RCC won't say the Mesopotamean Babylon didn't exist at the time, they admit it was nearly inconsequential in it's size and power as a city; but, it was still there. And if there were people there, there was reason to be there. Spreading the Gospel to the whole world didn't mean the Roman empire, it meant the whole world. Ya'll seem to miss that point too.
Shall I pile on more? Lets. There were twelve. Where'd the other 11 go? Could it be that they were doing what they were charged to do? And there is mostly silence from them. Peter wrote some, but there is mostly silence from him too. Too busy to write? Paul was prolific; but, his writings came mostly from jail - had a lot of time on his hands. He's the only one that really stood still and only after he was captured. OOPS. Peter did have a home Church; but, it was in Judea and he had no reason not to keep it there. His ministry was to the Jews and the biggest concentration of Jews in the world were not in Rome or even Italy, but in the area of Judea - until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. OOPS.
Were there Jews in Rome, yes. But there were Gentiles in Judea. OOPS. And rather than Paul going to Judea to teach those Gentiles, he jerked Peter's Chain and straightened him out on how to do it.. OOPS again. If Paul need not teach the Gentiles in Judea, Peter need not teach the Jews in Rome.. OOPS OOPS.
Another thing comes to mind - I'm full of interesting tidbits tonight. If Peter's primary ministry was to the Jews. How is it that None of the early Bishops of Rome were Jewish? If he was there teaching the Jews, where are all the Jews of the Roman Church? And given his office again, why the continued persecution of Jews by the Roman Church through the ages. One would think that a group supposedly founded by Peter would love and Cherish the Jews - that history isn't there. The fact is that persecution of them was the theme of the day for centuries. Missed a number of OOPS's in this one but they OOPS themselves pretty loudly.
Another thing comes to mind, How could Peter have traveled to Britain as the Brits claim if he was stuck in Rome during the times you want to claim he was. Travelling to Britain wouldn't necessarily be out of the way for any of the Apostles to do. Is their claim less credible or more credible? They have about as much evidence. OOPS.
I have more, just let me know when you want to here the rest.
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.