Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[LittleLambofJesus]

And they see us as Catholics and Christians [etc]

That is why I decided to start a thread on the NCR board.....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7368777/#post51742674
To all non-Christians here...define a Christian

 

[Albion]

BINGO!!! This is it exactly.

People need to stop presuming to be the arbiter of what other people should be offended by. If they are offended - then they are offended whether you think they have the right to be or not. And when an entire GROUP of people say "We are not a denomination" or "Do not use a slur like Romish" then it is even more reason to just not use the words that offend them. If a person is not willing to respect that - then they are not here to engage in edifying discussion.

A valid point taken apart from all the realities. Denomination is a perfectly correct term and used by everyone in the business of comparative religion. The opposition to it comes from one denomination only and that is because it wants to be seen--and CALLED--by something that suggest the truth of a doubtful piece of theology and history. Why must members of the reformed churches agree to the theology of your church as a precondition for discussing anything related to it.

And the combination in your paragraph of "denomination" and "Romish" is not appropriate. The latter is widely accepted as a slur, quite unlike the harmless and accurate term "denomination."

But if you are certain that you want this to be the standard around here, I will go with it until it is violated by others. Fair's fair.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And they see us as Catholics and Christians [etc]

I just noticed the "and" in this. It is not JUST RCs that Jesus said would be being killed but anyone who names and calls upon the Name of Jesus as Lord and Savior.....

Matt 24:9 then they shall be delivering ye up into tribulation, and they shall be Killing/apoktenousin <615> (5692) Ye, and ye shall be being hated by all of the nations thru/because-of the Name of Me [Matt 23:34/Reve 11:7]

 

[Albion]

God is the Author but He uses men.

No one's denied that. Not that I know of. But the origin, the inspiration for, the guiding hand, the ideas themselves, are God's. The men merely wrote as they were inspired by him to do. This is an important point, although it is often missed.

 

[WarriorAngel]

IF you have as an example, a corporation, and sub stores [small companies under the same umbrella so to speak] and you know there is one original but several who imitate the original...

Is the original then considered itself an imitation thereof? And do we call the original - a sub store or the original?

The Catholic Church was started by the Apostles...they were told by Jesus that error [gates of hell] would not come into that Church He built upon them.

So we have some choices to make...
Either we fully believe in the Church Jesus established and laid down absolute protection for, or we don't.

Or we can choose to believe the Advocate He sent wouldn't remain faithful to His Church, or we do.

The Catholic Church has maintained it's Tradition even in the face of relativism of the post modern era.
She remains faithful to what she taught since the inception of the Apostles teaching, who beget other men to replace them in the same teachings via laying of hands [ordination]


I have yet - in all my years of observation, to find one prophecy that would contradict Christ's words, that the gates of hell would not prevail and therefore the Church would need to have other teachings and teachers ever after via according to what the writings can be of the opinion hence.

I have asked for this prophecy. It hasn't been yielded as of yet.

UPON THIS ROCK I BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL.

If there is anything that contradicts that statement to Peter being the recipient of the keys, then i can discern then that Matthew was in error in his writings which we all believe was led to be written by the Holy Spirit.

Or finally when Christ Ascending to Heaven, He said He would remain with them til the end of time.

1-We know time has not ended, so He literally meant 'them' to be a continued line of them until the end.
2-He will remain faithful, even if we do not [Timothy]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ah well........LLOJ bows back out again

 

[WarriorAngel]

I just noticed the "and" in this. It is not JUST RCs that Jesus said would be being killed but anyone who names and calls upon the Name of Jesus as Lord and Savior.....

Matt 24:9 then they shall be delivering ye up into tribulation, and they shall be Killing/apoktenousin <615> (5692) Ye, and ye shall be being hated by all of the nations thru/because-of the Name of Me [Matt 23:34/Reve 11:7]

This is why I emphasize context. Even when i write something, it appears ppl take it wrong somehow [so how do we expect everyone to be able to discern the Bible in 2009 without a guide?]
Context context context.

I said that the ppl i am currently in discussions with [via a debate on proof of God and Bible] consider us 'Catholics and Christians'.
THEY make the distinction.

Just so we are clear.

 

[Albion]

That is hogwash.
So you are saying Tit for Tat? I expected more from you than that dear friend.

With that I am unsubscribing from this thread

you'll be back in ten minutes, as per usual. So....here's my reply.

You asked and I answered. I gave specifics, not thinking you were setting some kind of trap up. You answered "Hogwash" but you couldn't deny the truth of any of what I wrote, could you?

And the only "tit for tat" is a positive one. I will follow the demands of the Catholic side if they follow the similar demands of the Christian side. Fair, huh? But do keep in mind that I started a whole conversation at one time not long ago asking what exactly the Catholics wanted banned. They hardly listed anything, so are we supposed to be mind-readers? Or perhaps we are to use different terminology to suit individual Catholics?

 

[WarriorAngel]

NOTING:
Peter even mentioned in His own Epistle that ppl in that day tried to discern Paul's Epistles on their own, and did so wrong.

What makes anyone today think they know better than those who heard Paul?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

NOTING:
Peter even mentioned in His own Epistle that ppl in that day tried to discern Paul's Epistles on their own, and did so wrong.

What makes anyone today think they know better than those who heard Paul?

I would say even the Jews of today still have not figured out Paul's writings.

The greek word #684 is interesting and that form of it is used in Reve 17:8,11

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult-to-understand/dus-nohta <1425> who-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rests of Writings toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>.
[this form of # 684 used reve 17:8, 11]

 

[Albion]

IF you have as an example, a corporation, and sub stores [small companies under the same umbrella so to speak] and you know there is one original but several who imitate the original...

But we do not know which if any is the original.

The Catholic Church was started by the Apostles

That's one theory. I don't find that scripture or history supports it.

So we have some choices to make...
Either we fully believe in the Church Jesus established and laid down absolute protection for, or we don't.

The church he was speaking of was the whole body of believers, not the followers of Peter vs. the followers of James, etc.

The Catholic Church has maintained it's Tradition even in the face of relativism of the post modern era.

I think that the facts clearly speak to the opposite conclusion. There have been many changes.

If there is anything that contradicts that statement to Peter being the recipient of the keys

It all depends on the correct understanding of "keys" doesn't it?

 

[WarriorAngel]

No one's denied that. Not that I know of. But the origin, the inspiration for, the guiding hand, the ideas themselves, are God's. The men merely wrote as they were inspired by him to do. This is an important point, although it is often missed.

I agree it is very missed.
Even to the point I have seen ppl say - that God wrote it Himself and doesnt need men...
Which flies in the face of logic.

But going one step further - God not only used men to convey the message - but the messenger [recipient] had to understand what was being conveyed or the message was useless.

If the one who wrote it, didn't ensure the message was read and KEPT correctly in context, then the message is like spitting in the wind.
It then serves no useful purpose.
I even raise the stakes to say - it only serves to promote mass confusion if there is no one who understands it.

And even more - it will not serve a purpose for the future generations if no one is taught the truth of it, and can maintain the truth of it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

But we do not know which if any is the original.


That's one theory. I don't find that scripture or history supports it.


The church he was speaking of was the whole body of believers, not the followers of Peter vs. the followers of James, etc.


I think that the facts clearly speak to the opposite conclusion. There have been many changes.


It all depends on the correct understanding of "keys" doesn't it?

Under this conclusion then;

1-No one has absolute truth of what anything means.
2-Why did the Apostles write Epistles to cut off heresies if they are acceptable?
3-If everyone who says they believe are saved, then why did Peter rebuke Simon the magician?
4-If everyone is part of the one body, then why didn't Paul accept everyone following this or that person?
5-If this is true, then why did the Apostles rebuke those in error at all?
6-If you think the Church who has been here and has recorded every successor to Peter since the beginning is wrong, then i dont hold out much hope for anyone.

 

[Albion]

I agree it is very missed.
Even to the point I have seen ppl say - that God wrote it Himself and doesnt need men...
Which flies in the face of logic.

I must say that I've never heard that from any of the regulars around here, regardless of their affiliations. A way-out theological liberal might, but it's not said by any one of us.

But going one step further - God not only used men to convey the message - but the messenger [recipient] had to understand what was being conveyed or the message was useless.

That's illogical. The record speaks for itself. Not everyone is going to understand it, that's just life. But we are talking about the revelation itself being sound and true.

And even more - it will not serve a purpose for the future generations if no one is taught the truth of it, and can maintain the truth of it.

If that were to happen, you'd be right. But it hasn't, nor is there any reason to think it will, so I don't think we need to worry too much about it.

 

[Albion]

Under this conclusion then;

1-No one has absolute truth of what anything means.
2-Why did the Apostles write Epistles to cut off heresies if they are acceptable?
3-If everyone who says they believe are saved, then why did Peter rebuke Simon the magician?
4-If everyone is part of the one body, then why didn't Paul accept everyone following this or that person?
5-If this is true, then why did the Apostles rebuke those in error at all?
6-If you think the Church who has been here and has recorded every successor to Peter since the beginning is wrong, then i dont hold out much hope for anyone.

There a lot of errors in that listing. Maybe you should present them one at a time, just as you want to state them, and we'll work through them.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I would say even the Jews of today still have not figured out Paul's writings.

The greek word #684 is interesting and that form of it is used in Reve 17:8,11

http://www.scripture4all.org/

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all the letters speaking in them about these-things in which is difficult-to-understand/dus-nohta <1425> who-any which the un-learned and un-steadfast are wresting/twisting as also the rests of Writings toward the own of them destruction/apwleian <684>.
[this form of # 684 used reve 17:8, 11]

Why should they?
They refused to follow the teachings of the Apostles since the beginning...what makes anyone think they can now?

 

[WarriorAngel]

There a lot of errors in that listing. Maybe you should present them one at a time, just as you want to state them, and we'll work through them.

In keeping with the thread title...

Let's go with the last one.

IF you think the Church that contains the successors to Peter has it wrong, then what gives anyone else the hope they have it right?

Seriously, as I said, Jesus was going to Ascend and told them 'I will remain with you til the end of time.'

Jesus didn't literally mean just them, obviously here we sit 2000 years later. SO Jesus was emphasizing that HE would remain with His Church til the end of time....but not just anyone who laid claim - as per the rebuking from the Apostles, but the choosen men who built the Church on His doctrines and truth.
[That He conveyed to them ALONE for 40 days]

IF The Catholic Church who can show the succession of the line if Peter who was handed the keys to open and shut Heaven - is wrong - what hope is there for everyone else?

Seriously.

I still haven't seen one prophecy that disregards the statement to Peter. I see nothing where Jesus said 'You will be My Church until...'

Everything written stands behind the Church that began with the Apostles and continues today at the guardianship of the Advocate and Jesus.

So if His Church cannot be right...then how do we believe in scriptures that told us He would remain with the Church - and moreover specifically to His Choosen men?

The Church has the successions documented since St Irenaeus put the first Popes in writing and so did Eusebius.
That's two witnesses with the same list.
NOTE: St Irenaeus went further to say - where the Pope was - there was the truth.


Interesting to note that after the Church was put on earth, the need for genealogy ended and the list of Popes started.

 

[Albion]

Under this conclusion then;

1-No one has absolute truth of what anything means.
2-Why did the Apostles write Epistles to cut off heresies if they are acceptable?
3-If everyone who says they believe are saved, then why did Peter rebuke Simon the magician?
4-If everyone is part of the one body, then why didn't Paul accept everyone following this or that person?
5-If this is true, then why did the Apostles rebuke those in error at all?
6-If you think the Church who has been here and has recorded every successor to Peter since the beginning is wrong, then i dont hold out much hope for anyone.

As I said before, there are a lot of misconceptions and errors in those points. But did you want me to start myself and begin with point #1?

OK.

1-No one has absolute truth of what anything means.

Why say such a thing as that? Is it indeed correct to say that "no one" has the truth or that no one knows what anything means? If that were so--and we do not know it to be the case that someone somewhere doesn't have it right--then God would be a colossal failure, wouldn't he? His revelation was for nothing according to that conclusion--he gave and no one got it. No one.

But in fact, we have no reason to doubt that although some people may miss the point or misunderstand, or just not care, some people DO get it.

So, that means that point #1 is unsustainable (and I don't know that there is anyone who DOES think that no one knows anything).

Your reaction?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I must say that I've never heard that from any of the regulars around here, regardless of their affiliations. A way-out theological liberal might, but it's not said by any one of us.


That's illogical. The record speaks for itself. Not everyone is going to understand it, that's just life. But we are talking about the revelation itself being sound and true.

[/b]
If that were to happen, you'd be right. But it hasn't, nor is there any reason to think it will, so I don't think we need to worry too much about it.

I counter that assesment when i stand behind what i said.
HOW can we have the truth if we have no guardian of the truth?

Peter went so far as to suggest condemnation to those who wrested the scriptures and Paul's Epistles.

Obviously, this means someone was attempting to give an opinion on what Paul wrote and what the OT meant.

Peter rebuked doing that.
It is rather obvious in the context of things.

If 'A' is wresting scriptures for themselves then 'A' is wrong. If 'A' is wrong for trying to self discern scriptures, then 'A' needs 'B' to help them so they do not meet with condenmation. If there is no 'B' then why would 'A' be condemned???

Its self evident.

 

[Albion]

In keeping with the thread title...

Let's go with the last one.

OK. As you see, I guessed that you wanted me to start off, considering that you had already given the listing...and I started with #1. But let's see what you say here.

IF you think the Church that contains the successors to Peter has it wrong, then what gives anyone else the hope they have it right?

First, we have to define or identify what is meant by "church." Then if we can be sure of its identify, we could probably see if it has things right.

So far, what I'm seeing is you stipulating that your church is that church that Christ founded and no other branch of his church is. There is no reason to conclude that.

By the way, Peter's successors -- if you mean bishops -- are to be found in all kinds of different church bodies.

Seriously, as I said, Jesus was going to Ascend and told them 'I will remain with you til the end of time.'

I should hope so. This is a spiritual, abiding presence, don't you think?

SO Jesus was emphasizing that HE would remain with His Church til the end of time....but not just anyone who laid claim - as per the rebuking from the Apostles, but the choosen men who built the Church on His doctrines and truth.

Two different ideas there. That he sill remain with his church. If that means his people, we don't doubt that, which means it's nothing to debate. But then you switched to saying you had located that church he's remining with. We haven't agreed on its identity yet.

IF The Catholic Church who can show the succession of the line if Peter who was handed the keys to open and shut Heaven - is wrong - what hope is there for everyone else?

What if it can't do that? Does "no one" then know anything? Why would that follow?