You Can't Get Past this Rock

[thereselittleflower]

Ah. Can you show me a scripture where someone else id given the keys?

I'ld love to see that too!

The keys are symbolic of the OT Davidic Prime Minister. There was one King, and one Prime Minister among the King's ministers. There was not multiple Prime Ministers then, and there are not now. Peter and the popes are the fulfillment of that office.

Exactly

Just as Christ's kingdom is the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom, and Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic King, so is Peter the fulfillment of the office of Primeminister in the Davidic kingdom. Just as the Davidic Kingdom had other ministers under the Prime Minister, so also does Christ's kingdom have other shepherds/bishops under the chief shepherd, prime minister, Peter (and his office).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Exactly

Just as Christ's kingdom is the fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom, and Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic King, so is Peter the fulfillment of the office of Primeminister in the Davidic kingdom. Just as the Davidic Kingdom had other ministers under the Prime Minister, so also does Christ's kingdom have other shepherds/bishops under the chief shepherd, prime minister, Peter (and his office).

Why does the Roman church always leave out my dear Bro Paul.

Acts 9:15 Said yet toward him, the Lord , `Be you going!, that a vessel of choice is to Me this one, of the to bear the Name of Me in sight of nations and kings--sons besides of Israel;

 

[thereselittleflower]

Why does the Roman church always leave out my dear Bro Paul.

Acts 9:15 Said yet toward him, the Lord , `Be you going!, that a vessel of choice is to Me this one, of the to bear the Name of Me in sight of nations and kings--sons besides of Israel;

What does this have to do with what we are talking about regarding Peter?

 

[Catholic Christian]

...The keys given to Peter were given to all the Apostles.

This reminds me of how protestants imagine that they can see the word "alone" when they read Paul saying that we are saved by faith.

Paul says "faith", not "faith alone", and Jesus gave the Keys to Peter, not Peter and all the apostles. This is just wishful thinking on your part.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What does this have to do with what we are talking about regarding Peter?

Oh sorry. I will let the Orthodox speak for the "peter", as they are more knowledegable on that. Peace.

Did you see this post over here?

http://christianforums.com/t6813701-question-time-jesus-returns-before-or-after-1000yrs.html vbmenu_register("postmenu_43573442", true);
.......................

1. EPHESUS - APOSTOLIC CHURCH
2. SMYRNA - MARTYRCHURCH
3. PERGAMOS - STATECHURCH
4. THYATIRA - PAPAL CHURCH
5. SARDIS - REFORMATION CHURCH
6. PHILADELPHIA - MISSIONARY CHURCH
7. LAODICEA - APOSTATE CHURCH

 

[Catholic Christian]

Why does the Roman church always leave out my dear Bro Paul.

Non Sequitur. There is no such thing as the Roman Church.
We are Catholics, members or the Catholic Church, led by Christ's representive, Pope Benedict XVI, the successor of Saint Peter.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Non Sequitur. There is no such thing as the Roman Church.
We are Catholics, members or the Catholic Church, led by Christ's representive, Pope Benedict XVI, the successor of Saint Peter.

But of course YOU are.
I never said anything differently.

 

[Rick Otto]

If I can't see it, it isn't there!
LOL
If I imagine it is, it is!

With enough Latin, anything is possible!

 

[simonthezealot]

the successor of Saint Peter.

And the two John 23's

Here's what Edward Gibbon had to say about the first...

the first John XXIII was charged with piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest, with the more serious charges being suppressed.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=terryobrien80;Ah. Can you show me a scripture where someone else id given the keys?

Monty did just a few posts before you asked:

"The Bible alone mentions ‘the keys’ with the person of Peter
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

However it is implied that ‘the keys’ were given to other Apostles
Matthew 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

 

[thereselittleflower]

And the two John 23's

Here's what Edward Gibbon had to say about the first...

the first John XXIII was charged with piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest, with the more serious charges being suppressed.

Methinks you posted in the wrong thread - what does this have to do with anything we are talking about here? :scratach:

 

[simonthezealot]

Monty did just a few posts before you asked:

Probably want to save your breath "blue in the face" isn't very becoming..

 

[thereselittleflower]

Monty did just a few posts before you asked:

No, those scriptures do not imply any such thing. Just because someone misuses them to try to support their position does not mean that they have succeeded in providing the scriptual proofs asked for.

There is nothing in either of those two passages that show us the other apostles were given the keys of the kingdom.

 

[Catholic Christian]

And the two John 23's

Here's what Edward Gibbon had to say about the first...

the first John XXIII was charged with piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest, with the more serious charges being suppressed.

Peter cut a mans ear off, denied Christ, and still penned scripture afterwards.

POINT: The mens' sins are irrelevant

 

[MikeMcK]

Few texts have occasioned the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:18–19:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What is it about quoting this whole passage in context that terrifies Roman Catholics so?

 

[Catholic Christian]

What is it about quoting this whole passage in context that terrifies Roman Catholics so?

What is it about reading it in the context of Jewish culture that terrifies protestants so?

 

[thereselittleflower]

What is it about quoting this whole passage in context that terrifies Roman Catholics so?

Huh?

 

[thereselittleflower]

What is it about reading it in the context of Jewish culture that terrifies protestants so?

That is the REAL question!

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=thereselittleflower;No, those scriptures do not imply any such thing.

Unsubstantiated nonsense. The fact that all disciples held the same power implies exactly that.

Just because someone misuses them to try to support their position does not mean that they have succeeded in providing the scriptual proofs asked for.

Then stop doing that.

There is nothing in either of those two passages that show us the other apostles were given the keys of the kingdom.

Not if you're willfully blind to the fact that verse one in Matt 18 establishes to whom He speaks (1: At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying,...)
And that He says to His disciples: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.

In fact, these passages condemn the idea of papacy in the context which is also established in the 1st verse:
1: At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

ANYone who is a true disciple holds the truth in righteousness & wields the keys which are the symbols of Truth's authority, not simply the authority of an ecclesiastic office:
Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. 47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. 49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. Again, when the "who is greatest" ego trip raised its ugly head, Jesus ripped it off completely.

 

[sunlover1]

This position of being an “Apostle” was unique to them. Even after the Apostles’ deaths, their unique title remains with them for all eternity. In the Bible, we are given a glimpse of the heavenly city, And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb[Jesus] (Revelation 21:14)

According to Scripture, the future of the Church rested in the appointing of family men able to rule and to carry on the teaching of the Apostles and of Jesus Christ but all according to the written word of truth found in the Bible. The Bible clearly shows that the Apostles established the practice of appointing not successors but rather deacons and elders (elders are also referred to as bishops).

The term bishop or elder is never employed in the New Testament to designate an order of men superior to others. They are ordinary family men having also the function of leading the Lord’s people. Never are they seen as “successors” to the Apostles. This concept is wholly unknown to the New Testament. It is very clear from the Scriptures that the Apostle Paul was telling both Titus and Timothy who were not Apostles to be the ones to appoint bishops. This established the practice in which the local church was to appoint elders or bishops from the available men whose obedient lives were observed and evident to all.

The Scripture carefully recorded the visits of Peter to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea and Antioch. There is simply no mention made of his going to Rome, which is essential to establish the Roman Catholic position. This first building block of an imaginary succession is missing in the New Testament. Apostolic succession without apostolic doctrine is a fraud. The Apostle Paul at Rome never once mentions Peter in any of his letters written from Rome to the churches, although he does remember very many others who were with him in the city. Clearly the teaching regarding Peter being in Rome as its first Bishop is a simply a deception. Nowhere else in the New Testament or other credible written history shows evidence of Peter ever even visiting Rome.

The Roman Catholic Church has no intention of obeying the clear witness of the Scripture, as is obvious from their blatant disobedience to the fact that elders or bishops are to be the “husband of one wife”. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats (meatless Friday yep), which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth (I Timothy 4:1-3).

Peter never set foot in Rome. He was appointed as the apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

Why does the Roman church always leave out my dear Bro Paul.

Acts 9:15 Said yet toward him, the Lord , `Be you going!, that a vessel of choice is to Me this one, of the to bear the Name of Me in sight of nations and kings--sons besides of Israel;

This is very informative and helpful nodoubt.

I appreciate your effort and can understand why no one
answered you.

What is it about quoting this whole passage in context that terrifies Roman Catholics so?

I dont think it's about fear, but I agree that it's clearly written,
and you dont even need to context to see it, if you have that ability.

18 And I say also unto thee,
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my churchhttp://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=43582350#_ftn2