INDEED.
Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
ARE YOU CALLING JESUS AN INDIAN GIVER?! Hahaha...in all seriousness, those aren't the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, they are the keys to Hades/Sheol. Now, you may say "same difference" but I disagree. The Keys to the Kingdom (given to Peter, but more on that below) have the power to bind and loose on Earth - not beyond. As such, Jesus never gave up the keys to the place where souls who had already departed Earth resided - Sheol.
There's the problem with keeping the keys separate from binding and loosing. Bind and loose are associated directly with the keys in Matt. 16:18, and then he uses the same language in Matt 18:18, it has to be referencing the power of the Keys.
Yes, the power of the Keys is the power to bind and loose - but the authority conferred by the transfer of the Keys rather than just the power is tantamount. More on that below.
What was the point of the House of David? What was the point or the lineage of David? Jesus. He is the everlasting King in the line of David, and the authority. But what does he do? He asks us, starting with the disciples, to let others into the kingdom of God. What does He give for that purpose? A helper (the Holy Spirit) and Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven--the Gospel. Both are right next to each other in John 20:22-23.
I completely agree the House of David and his line was for Christ. But the imagery of the key is tantamount. In Isaiah, the transfer of the key was the vesting of authority over the Kingdom of Judea in the absence of the King - it established him as a steward. As such, it was a transfer of authority. If the real Keys were the Gospel, as you argue, why would Jesus solely charge the Twelve with this? Why would he exclude his other followers - Mary, His mother, Mary Magdeline, plus the countless others who believed in Him? It seems to me that the transfer of Keys was a vesting of authority, as it was in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Your words speak what is in your heart.
INDEED.
Hmmmmm.
I think. LOL.
Congrats on your long military heritage.
Matthew 18:18f is not exclusive to Peter. The issue was the scriptural authority given the Church. Here it is.
I agree they are different keys. I just put it up as a joke.
But the imagery of the key is tantamount. In Isaiah, the transfer of the key was the vesting of authority over the Kingdom of Judea in the absence of the King - it established him as a steward.
I agree here
If the real Keys were the Gospel, as you argue, why would Jesus solely charge the Twelve with this?
I don't think there is exclusivity with this. Of course, whoever the original 12 baptized could then go on and baptize others. They wouldn't be good Christians if they didn't. I think that all Christians have the keys and they are linked with the Holy Spirit. We are not only to have our sins forgiven and enter heaven, but also to tell others and let them into the Kingdom.
Indeed, but what repulses me on this thread is slandering Christians by people whose exposure to Christianity is limited by what Calvin wrote.
When was that? Saul of Tarsus persecuted her before he was Paul.
I don't think there is exclusivity with this. Of course, whoever the original 12 baptized could then go on and baptize others. They wouldn't be good Christians if they didn't. I think that all Christians have the keys and they are linked with the Holy Spirit. We are not only to have our sins forgiven and enter heaven, but also to tell others and let them into the Kingdom.
I absolutely agree it is the duty of all Christians to spread the Word. However, the fact that the power of "binding and loosing" is said solely to the Twelve is troubling for your view. He appeared to others, yet conferred this authority directly to his Apostles. Further, what do you think the reason for the laying on of hands (especially in the case of Paul) was, if not to pass along this authority?
As an aside, I want to thank you for an enlighting and civil conversation. With some of the more recent posts on this thread, I get disheartened with the venom tossed around. Thanks for being intelligent and reasonable.
I did not come to this place in time where I can indulge myself in reading this entire thread so far, and then look up certain things posted here because of my Dad's, or my son's military experiences.
I was raised as a Catholic, and just about as soon as I became of (16 or so) age, I made it my business to do some reading on a few things.
I stopped defining myself as a "Catholic" more than 30 years ago, because of the things that I had read, and learned.
I made it my business to study hard on these matters.
It is OK with me that folks want to debate on the relevant issues.
This has been a wonderful thread so far.
37 Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? 38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.What about it? You think that monks (for example) don't get baptized, don't do penance, don't have the gift of the Holy Ghost, don't know the law in their bowels or God in their hearts?(Acts 2)
31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda: 32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had dominion over them, saith the Lord. 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
(Jeremias 31)
The promise was of a New Covenant written on fleshy tablets.
Old Covenant tablet = stone
New Covenant tablet = flesh
Need more clue?
“Pricked in their hearts.”
I anticipate that you can't/won't see it because you are so entirely busy defending something else in a different place.
Meanwhile, back at the rants......
I’m interested in your reasoning for leaving Catholicism. Why? Well, because I did the opposite. I’m a convert to the Catholic Church.
The deeper I read the NT, the more Apostolic succession made sense to me...I mean the lineage is there and clear. But it wasn’t enough so I started reading the Early Church Fathers. That convinced me along with a conversion of heart and the real Christ in the Eucharist.
Yes- ‘the Elders AMONG you’. Not over you.
If you have something to say, say it plainly please. I promise I will make it just as entertaining as playing clues. I usually do.
I suppose that’s why Paul has such a resounding success at Mars Hill.
That is correct. I think exactly what you posted that I might think.
Well, not exactly the penance part. That is more serous Catholic dogma that I suppose I will have to discuss later, and so I will.
Keyword later.
Well, now that I have your attention, I really think that the truth is so very simple that it is arrogance only that makes you blind.
Try reading into the Scripture (that I quoted, and that you posted), rather than simply demonstrating that you can paste it.
I'll explain it to you later if you really struggle with the concepts.
This is a discussion forum. I am interested in your opinion, but I am not interested in playing coy. I am a busy man.
I did something really radical then when I was about 20 years old..
I actually went to the library, and later my home in order to do some reading.
I read the Bible, KJV version. I read it again after that.
I was mystified about certain things. I went to College. I took Divinity Courses.
I bought books, I read books, I tried to pay attention to the subject matter as I learned.
I read a lot, and I still read a lot.
I see a recent trend of Catholic apologists emerging in defense of a monolthic entity that lost its way so far back in time that it would be generous to call it the "Middle Ages".
No reason to go on.
My sentiments are not with the converts to Rome.
No personal offense intended.
You keep busy.
I’ll keep reading!
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.