What ARE The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven anyhow?

[JacktheCatholic]

16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
18: Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19: Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


And isn't it ironic that the question began with "who is the greatest", since Peter's alleged primacy is the foundation of papal authority?

What I find ironic is your blatant removal of line 17 in a discussion of differences. We have people in this thread arguing the meaning of scripture and how to interpret it and you leave out line 17. Why?

Here is line 17:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Who do YOU go to when you need to "tell the church"?

Where is this "Church" today that can decide on our differences in this thread?

OR is this scripture that can be ignored for you?

 

[squint]

Jesus DIVIDED Peter and SATAN from each other.

You know for a fact that RCC Orthodoxy does not make PETER SATAN, right?

Bully for them. They shouldn't.

Now just how much "authority" one would want to convey upon a "man" who was "subject to the working of Satan" in his mind and flesh is quite another story isn't it? I mean Peter was sooo used of Jesus to show that principle. Even Paul used Peter as a gaffe of ignorance in Galatians when Paul said that CEPHAS (his old name) stood condemned over his showing of "hypocrisy" under The Law:

Galatians 2:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

What? Say WHAT? Cephas stood CONDEMNED??? Even after the "baptism of the Holy Spirit?" Even after striking DEAD Ananias and Saphira via The Holy Spirit???

Yep...it's a FACT.

And WHY?

Perhaps if we looked upon the KEY that Jesus showed us IN Peter and Satan, we'd learn a thing or two about WHO is approved and WHO is condemned and RESISTED and we would then also see IN OURSELVES just "who" is approved and "who" is then condemned?

The "old name" or the "old man" or the "carnal man" acts as a SLAVE, in not DIVIDING himself from that which his flesh is subject to, that being the working of the DEVIL AND HIS MESSENGERS in his flesh and mind. The old man does not "see" this operational principle. The "dissimulation" or HYPOCRISY that Peter/Cephas OPENLY SHOWED at "Antioch" was of one who "feared" not being "under the Law" while Paul knew that ALL stood condemned under that same Law.

The "real" question that should be viewed in these matters is WHY are people condemned under that LAW?

Now certain members of the "clergy" will not understand these certain principles that we are asked as believers to abide in. One of those principles is to understand the CERTAIN DIVISION that Jesus openly showed with PETER and with SATAN upon Peter.

You will find "very few" who actually understand this division. Instead you will find reeking condemnation toward our fellow man whom Jesus has commanded us as His diciples to LOVE.

WHY then do we call our fellow man SINNERS when it is SATAN UPON THEM who sins in their flesh and minds? Ask yourself that sometimes.

Do I put any "stock" in Peter? Yes. Peter was, like ALL MANKIND, Gods offspring. Even Peter was shown by God to call NO MAN common or unclean (found in Acts 10.) Why then do WE do that?

When we "see" that The Law is for the LAWLESS who are found in our flesh and minds, we understand WHO is "under the law" and those certain lawless ones will STAND CONDEMNED under the law, and those same ones will even become EMPOWERED under that same LAW to commit LAWLESSNESS as the power of SIN is IN THE LAW.

Was Peter then condemned BY THE LAW? Never. But that which Peter was "subject to" was then and to this day remains CONDEMNED under the law, and the condemned ones are NOT your fellow man, but THE DEVIL AND HIS MESSENGERS whom Jesus clearly showed were IN THE FLESH.

enjoy!

squint

 

[WarriorAngel]

Yet... does anyone at all question the authority of Moses?

He was a man!!

SO why is Peter questioned?

Can't Christ choose who HE wants to lead His flock??

"Feed my sheep" was to Peter alone, just like the keys.

Gees..2000 years of the Church celebrating the keys of the Gospel, and now we have an issue with Peter.

Whatever... it was never an issue in the ancient Church, only today.

SO whats that say?

2 Thessalonians 3
6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

 

[squint]

Yet... does anyone at all question the authority of Moses?

He was a man!!

SO why is Peter questioned?

Can't Christ choose who HE wants to lead His flock??

"Feed my sheep" was to Peter alone, just like the keys.

Gees..2000 years of the Church celebrating the keys of the Gospel, and now we have an issue with Peter.

Whatever... it was never an issue in the ancient Church, only today.

SO whats that say?

2 Thessalonians 3
6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Men of God are led OF GOD.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What I find ironic is your blatant removal of line 17 in a discussion of differences. We have people in this thread arguing the meaning of scripture and how to interpret it and you leave out line 17. Why?

Here is line 17:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Who do YOU go to when you need to "tell the church"?

Where is this "Church" today that can decide on our differences in this thread?

OR is this scripture that can be ignored for you?

Mine is about 7 blocks from my house.

Matthew 23:4 They yet are binding loads, weighty/barea <926> and hard to bear/fortia <5413>, and they are placing upon the shoulders of the men, they yet to the finger of them, not are willing to stir them.

Acts 20:28 Be ye heeding! to yourselves, and to all the little-flock in which ye the Spirit, the Holy Spirit placed episcopals to be shepherding the assembly of the God, which He procures through the blood of His own.
29 I have perceived that shall be entering after the departure of Me, weighty/bareiV <926> wolves into ye, no sparing of the little flocklet;

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Mine is about 7 blocks from my house.

Matthew 23:4 They yet are binding loads, weighty/barea <926> and hard to bear/fortia <5413>, and they are placing upon the shoulders of the men, they yet to the finger of them, not are willing to stir them.

Acts 20:28 Be ye heeding! to yourselves, and to all the little-flock in which ye the Spirit, the Holy Spirit placed episcopals to be shepherding the assembly of the God, which He procures through the blood of His own.
29 I have perceived that shall be entering after the departure of Me, weighty/bareiV <926> wolves into ye, no sparing of the little flocklet;

Exactly! Wolves entering the church.

We must go to the church to settle disputes. But there was also scripture saying that when you go to another town do not go to any church but what?

*Note: please leave out all the gobbly de [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] from from your quotes.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yet... does anyone at all question the authority of Moses?

He was a man!!

SO why is Peter questioned?

Can't Christ choose who HE wants to lead His flock??

"Feed my sheep" was to Peter alone, just like the keys.

Gees..2000 years of the Church celebrating the keys of the Gospel, and now we have an issue with Peter.

Whatever... it was never an issue in the ancient Church, only today.

SO whats that say?

2 Thessalonians 3
6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

That is awesome!

Do I know you??? LOL

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Exactly! Wolves entering the church.

We must go to the church to settle disputes. But there was also scripture saying that when you go to another town do not go to any church but what?

*Note: please leave out all the gobbly de [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] from from your quotes.

You call my Scripture "gobbly de" ?

That is the way I view a lot of stuff the Church of Rome gives out .

Luke 23:31 That if in the moist wood, the-this, they are doing,-- in the dry/xhrw <3584> what may-be-becoming?

Tex-Rep) Reve 14:15 And another messenger out-came out of-the Sanctuary crying-out in great voice, to-the one sitting upon the cloud: "Send you! the sickle of you, and reap! That came the hour to reap/qerisai <2325>, that is-Dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Harvest of the land".

Tex-Rep) Reve 16:12 And the sixth one pours out the bowl of him on the River, the Great, the Euphrates, and is-Dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Water of it/him, that may be being made ready the way of the kings, the-ones from rising of-sun.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Traditions after after a manner of life, walk and behavior

The tradition is not of a vain form of godliness but after godliness (after Christ) as is noted even in this verse that shows it. The tradition is after a manner of behavior. This is seen in the apostles lives, in their epistles even by word.

2Thes 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that ~walketh~disorderly~, and not after ~the tradition~ which he received of us.

The tradition appears to be after a ~godly behavoir~, they were not to ~walk disorderly~ after the manner of life. He is not a God of disorder.

Next verse shows it

2Thes 3:7 For yourselves ~know~ how ye ought to ~follow us~: for we ~behaved not~ ourselves disorderly ~among you~;

Like my colors? Highlighted to both emphasize and to get on everyones nerves

The same exact words are used (between these two verses). The tradition Paul speaks of is defined in the verse after owns behavior.

1Thes 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us ~how~ ye ought ~to walk~ and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

Another tradition (which is NOT AFTER Christ = His doctrine which is AFTER godliness) NOT a FORM of it is what we are to pursue

This is contrasted against ~the tradition of men~

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man ~spoil you~ through philosophy and vain deceit, ~after~ the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

One shows its AFTER Christ (the doctrine of Christ is AFTER godliness) as the other confirms the same (in life, walk and behavior). The other is a FORM of godliness (from which we are to TURN AWAY).

Same is true as it pertains to the tradition and commandments of men.

One is after (Christ) in life and after the doctrine of godliness (Which is Christ's). The other having A FORM of godliness (commandments of men) which denys the power of God. Not only so but these TURN FROM Christ.

One allows ones faith stand in the wisdom ~of men~ (to the contrary) of "the power of God" (Christ) upon Whom we are admonished to rest our faith upon. Not to the contrary.

The apostles tradition appears to be after "a behavior", "what ye have learned of Him" (as it pertains to godly behavior).

This makes sense in Christ. The verse shows the evidence pertaining to the tradition He speaks of. Both corresponding to ones behavior (life or walk).

Being known by ones fruits (which are after Christ) and the doctrine which is after godliness verses traditions and commandments of men (and a form of godliness) stands beautifully on its own. At least I think it does.

Which should always be tested to be certain of what Paul was speaking of unless, God forbid we do this...


Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Which could happen.

HIS disciples (after the patern) are shown trangressing the tradition of "the elders"

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Shows the same here as it pertains to both Paul and Timothy. Timothy he knew Pauls doctrine, purpose, manner of life, faith and charity.

1Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Same goes for Paul

Phil 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

I hope my colors bless someone

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Thekla]

the words used by St. Paul in Galatians 2:11 (withstood him to the face,
kata prosopon auto antestin) "imply a scheme" -- according to the footnote in my Bible

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You call my Scripture "gobbly de" ?

That is the way I view a lot of stuff the Church of Rome gives out .

Luke 23:31 That if in the moist wood, the-this, they are doing,-- in the dry/xhrw <3584> what may-be-becoming?

Tex-Rep) Reve 14:15 And another messenger out-came out of-the Sanctuary crying-out in great voice, to-the one sitting upon the cloud: "Send you! the sickle of you, and reap! That came the hour to reap/qerisai <2325>, that is-Dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Harvest of the land".

Tex-Rep) Reve 16:12 And the sixth one pours out the bowl of him on the River, the Great, the Euphrates, and is-Dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Water of it/him, that may be being made ready the way of the kings, the-ones from rising of-sun.

You can be a rather insulting and shallow person huh?

But I am forgiving...

"gobbly degouk" is all this: "is-Dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Harvest "

I was simply asking for some consideration on your part and now that it is better not to ask you for any small favor.

Shalom

 

[Rick Otto]

What I find ironic is your blatant removal of line 17 in a discussion of differences. We have people in this thread arguing the meaning of scripture and how to interpret it and you leave out line 17. Why?

Here is line 17:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Who do YOU go to when you need to "tell the church"?

Where is this "Church" today that can decide on our differences in this thread?

OR is this scripture that can be ignored for you?

Of course not lil' buddy!
Here's where this "Church" is today, same as always:
Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You can be a rather insulting and shallow person huh?

But I am forgiving...

"gobbly degouk" is all this: "is-Dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Harvest "

I was simply asking for some consideration on your part and now that it is better not to ask you for any small favor.

Shalom

Just helps me harmonize the Bible better. Too many translations use different english words for the same greek word-----thus confusion. Ahh well...........

Reve 12:7 And became battle in the Heaven, the Miyka'el and the messengers of him, battle with the Dragon, and the Dragon battles and the messengers of him 8 and not he is strong, neither [was] Place/topoV <5117> was found of-Them still in the heaven.

Reve 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the land and the Heaven fled away. And there was found no Place/topoV <5117> to-Them.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Of course not lil' buddy!
Here's where this "Church" is today, same as always:
Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

That is a poor answer for someone as smart as you Otto...

So why do you leave 17 out?

 

[Fireinfolding]

You can be a rather insulting and shallow person huh?

He shouldnt have returned your insult.

But I am forgiving...

Lamb is too

"gobbly degouk" is all this: "is-Dried/exhranqh <3583> (5681) the Harvest "

Your approach (it stinks) if you want an outsiders opinion. You are rude. You could ask nicely.

I was simply asking for some consideration on your part and now that it is better not to ask you for any small favor.

Shalom

You are asking for something you havent shown yourself.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Just helps me harmonize the Bible better. Too many translations use different english words for the same greek word-----thus confusion. Ahh well...........

Reve 12:7 And became battle in the Heaven, the Miyka'el and the messengers of him, battle with the Dragon, and the Dragon battles and the messengers of him 8 and not he is strong, neither [was] Place/topoV <5117> was found of Them still in the heaven.

Reve 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the land and the Heaven fled away. And there was found no Place/topoV <5117> for Them.

HUH???

 

[Rick Otto]

I didn't think I needed it to make my point.
Didn't mean to spook ya.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I didn't think I needed it to make my point.
Didn't mean to spook ya.

I see... you don't need it so dispose of it then.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

He shouldnt have returned your insult.

I did not have an insult given...

Lamb is too

How bout you???

Your approach (it stinks) if you want an outsiders opinion. You are rude. You could ask nicely.

I could say the same for you...

You are asking for something you havent shown yourself.

In your opinion. You know what they say about those...

 

[Rick Otto]

LOL!
Naw, BooBoo... It's still right there in the pic-a-nic basket. Ain't been disposed of at all.
You need to be less paranoid, lil' buddy.