A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Albion]

Of course it is written in a way that shows the audience would understand the meaning of the KEYS with out any explanation. It is also made clear that ONLY PETER received the KEYS.

That's right. Only Peter received the keys (whatever is meant by the imagery). Not to Linus, Clement, or anyone else.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That's right. Only Peter received the keys (whatever is meant by the imagery). Not to Linus, Clement, or anyone else.

Look at the Gospel of Matthew...

Matthew was written to the Jewish who were learned in the Old Testament. The Gospel also concentrates on Jesus being the Son of David from prophecy. The Gospel starts out giving Jesus' family connection to the House of David.

Because there is so much emphasis on the House of David when we read that Peter receives the Keys we should automatically see the reference to Isaias 22. If you do not that is fine but for the Jews it would require no explanation.

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Isaias 22:22. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

You should see the close connection in wording and how they both reflect each other. As we know Jesus came to fulfill and bring truth to the Old Testament.

The Key of the House of David is one of dynastic value. When one was no longer the holder of the Key another would take over the holding of the Key.

The Key gave the holder the powers of the King in the King's absense.

To go further...

The holder of the Key was a minister of the kingdom until he received the Key. Only one man can have the Key and that man is above the other ministers and thus the Prime Minister. As the prime minister he will still have the power to bind and loose as a minister. But unlike a minister he can loose what was binded by a minister and bind what was loosed by a minister because he holds the Key and can act as the King in such matters.

 

[Rick Otto]

It is equaly clear that Peter was not the binder & looser of Paul regarding circumsicion & dinner guest preferences.
Rather, Paul seems to have bound the only one given the keys, in this respect.
Perhaps giving the keys to the guy who sank in the water, denied Christ thrice, and romanced the judaizers, was a way of emphasizing the need for keeping only Christ as the head of His Body.
Perhaps the unity Jesus desired & the authority He wielded was spiritual, not institutional.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It is equaly clear that Peter was not the binder & looser of Paul regarding circumsicion & dinner guest preferences.
Rather, Paul seems to have bound the only one given the keys, in this respect.
Perhaps giving the keys to the guy who sank in the water, denied Christ thrice, and romanced the judaizers, was a way of emphasizing the need for keeping only Christ as the head of His Body.
Perhaps the unity Jesus desired & the authority He wielded was spiritual, not institutional.

Nice try to sway away from the simple truth...

But all you did was speak bad of Peter.

Do not forget it was Peter that approved circumcism no longer being needed.

 

[IamAdopted]

It is equaly clear that Peter was not the binder & looser of Paul regarding circumsicion & dinner guest preferences.
Rather, Paul seems to have bound the only one given the keys, in this respect.
Perhaps giving the keys to the guy who sank in the water, denied Christ thrice, and romanced the judaizers, was a way of emphasizing the need for keeping only Christ as the head of His Body.
Perhaps the unity Jesus desired & the authority He wielded was spiritual, not institutional.

Needs to be repeated. LOL. For there is only one head of the Church of God and that is Christ.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Needs to be repeated. LOL. For there is only one head of the Church of God and that is Christ.

No one is contesting that???

 

[IamAdopted]

What are the keys to you and what are they for?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What are the keys to you and what are they for?

This is from a few posts up...

Look at the Gospel of Matthew...

Matthew was written to the Jewish who were learned in the Old Testament. The Gospel also concentrates on Jesus being the Son of David from prophecy. The Gospel starts out giving Jesus' family connection to the House of David.

Because there is so much emphasis on the House of David when we read that Peter receives the Keys we should automatically see the reference to Isaias 22. If you do not that is fine but for the Jews it would require no explanation.

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Isaias 22:22. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

You should see the close connection in wording and how they both reflect each other. As we know Jesus came to fulfill and bring truth to the Old Testament.

The Key of the House of David is one of dynastic value. When one was no longer the holder of the Key another would take over the holding of the Key.

The Key gave the holder the powers of the King in the King's absense.

To go further...

The holder of the Key was a minister of the kingdom until he received the Key. Only one man can have the Key and that man is above the other ministers and thus the Prime Minister. As the prime minister he will still have the power to bind and loose as a minister. But unlike a minister he can loose what was binded by a minister and bind what was loosed by a minister because he holds the Key and can act as the King in such matters.

 

[IamAdopted]

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Isaias 22:22. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open

Sorry don't gel to me. For these are two different keys. The Key of David was Jesus rite to rule. The Keys to the Kingdom of God is preaching the Gospel so that all men can believe. We also have Keys in Revelation that Jesus has. To death and Hades

 

[Albion]

Look at the Gospel of Matthew...

Matthew was written to the Jewish who were learned in the Old Testament. The Gospel also concentrates on Jesus being the Son of David from prophecy. The Gospel starts out giving Jesus' family connection to the House of David.

Because there is so much emphasis on the House of David when we read that Peter receives the Keys we should automatically see the reference to Isaias 22.

This theory was fashioned centuries later to try to harmonize the Papacy's claims with the Scriptures. All that the NT says of the keys relates to Peter, not that he was expected to "regift" them.

Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he thought he could do so, either.

Nor is the line of David theory the necessary interpretation of the keys. For one thing, that political line had been interrupted, while you are thinking that the Papal reinvention of it could not be. Keys open things, and Peter was given the role of opening the Gospel to the wider world, which we know he did at Pentecost.

Most telling of all, no bishop of Rome claimed any of that supposed power you are advocating for approximately 400 years. If any of the bishops of Rome before this had thought of themselves as you do, one at least of them would have said something to that effect, don't you think?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Sorry don't gel to me. For these are two different keys. The Key of David was Jesus rite to rule. The Keys to the Kingdom of God is preaching the Gospel so that all men can believe. We also have Keys in Revelation that Jesus has. To death and Hades

The Key in Isaias 22 is not the same Key of the KEYS in Matthew 16:19. It is a reference to what the Keys mean.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This theory was fashioned centuries later to try to harmonize the Papacy's claims with the Scriptures. All that the NT says of the keys relates to Peter, not that he was expected to "regift" them.

Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he thought he could do so, either.

Nor is the line of David theory the necessary interpretation of the keys. For one thing, that political line had been interrupted, while you are thinking that the Papal reinvention of it could not be. Keys open things, and Peter was given the role of opening the Gospel to the wider world, which we know he did at Pentecost.

Most telling of all, no bishop of Rome claimed any of that supposed power you are advocating for approximately 400 years. If any of the bishops of Rome before this had thought of themselves as you do, one at least of them would have said something to that effect, don't you think?

Theory???

This is how the Jews understand the Key in Isaias. It is not a theory. To understand this then you will have to visit some Jewish writings from before Christ I think.

This understanding of the Keys and what they mean comes from Jewish teaching and tradition that was around before Peter was even born. Early Church Fathers made special mention of the Keys being to Peter only and for a reason. Much of what people contest today as 'theory' was simple truths back around the 1st and 2nd century. Heh?

This cannot be dismissed as 'theory'.

 

[Albion]

The Key in Isaias 22 is not the same Key of the KEYS in Matthew 16:19. It is a reference to what the Keys mean.

You may have misunderstood what several of us were explaining. Keys, like doors, gates, and other artifacts that open or close, admit or hold back, are used often in scripture to represent various human activities. To say that the word must have anything to do with the Papacy or Apostolic Succession is just one theory, and more than that, it is one that didn't arise until much later when some explanation for the Papal pretensions was needed.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You may have misunderstood what several of us were explaining. Keys, like doors, gates, and other artifacts that open or close, admit or hold back, are used often in scripture to represent various human activities. To say that the word must have anything to do with the Papacy or Apostolic Succession is just one theory, and more than that, it is one that didn't arise until much later when some explanation for the Papal pretensions was needed.

I think you are missing my point...

It is not a theory. The Key in Isaias 22 has a particular meaning which is more than aluded to in Matthew 16.

 

[Albion]

Theory???

It's one theory, and a somewhat strained one at that.

This is how the Jews understand the Key in Isaias.

But we are speaking of Peter, not that ONE use of the word key occurring in Isaias.

It is not a theory.

Of course it is. It is an analogy. It requires an explanation, i.e. a theory. That is unless you are arguing that Peter was turned into a piece of jagged metal with a fingergrip at one end.

lTo understand this then you will have to visit some Jewish writings from before Christ I think.

I disagree. To say that assumes, without reason, that there is one and only one possible meaning to the keys analogy.

Early Church Fathers made special mention of the Keys being to Peter only and for a reason.

Hey. We AGREE that Jesus gave Peter 'the keys!"

The issue is what is meant by them in that situation.

Much of what people contest today as 'theory' was simple truths back around the 1st and 2nd century.

If so, you can provide us with the evidence, Right? You can't just say that it's simple, that everyone thought according to your theory. If it's that simple and agreed-upon, there would be plenty of evidence from the first century. You haven't offered us any so far. And what is more, it is what JESUS meant, not what the ordinary Jew might have thought. As you know, they thought that the Messiah was to be a political deliverer, something Jesus had to disabuse them of. So if the common man hoped that the keys reference meant a political leader, we still don't have an explanation of what Jesus meant or Peter assumed.

But we do know that Peter opened the Gospel to the world (keys), that Jesus did not speak of this authority being transferrable, and that no bishops of Rome spoke of it as you have for quite some time. Why not, if is was as simple as you say?

 

[Albion]

I think you are missing my point...

It is not a theory. The Key in Isaias 22 has a particular meaning which is more than aluded to in Matthew 16.

Here's the point. YOU say that it is alluded to. That is your interpretation (agreed to by others, of course, and depending upon denomination. We understand all that).

But there is nothing specific in Matthew 16 that supports that theory. You have to "read into" Matthew to say what you have.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Here's the point. YOU say that it is alluded to. That is your interpretation (agreed to by others, of course, and depending upon denomination. We understand all that).

But there is nothing specific in Matthew 16 that supports that theory. You have to "read into" Matthew to say what you have.

You are looking at this from your denominations viewpoint and teaching. Your teaching tries to conform evertything in the bible to it's own teaching.

I am saying that Matthew was written to the Jews in the first century that were being converted to Christianity. That the Gospel of Matthew will concentrate on Jewish teachings because it is showing that Jesus has fulfilled prophecies. Because there is emphasis on Jesus fulfilling prophecies in regards to the Old Testatment, the OT will be the backdrop to much that is written.

Any one reading Isaias 22:22 and Matthew 16:19 can see the duplication is writing. For the Jews in the first century this chapter and verse of Matthew would not go without recognition of Isaias 22:22 to any learned Jew.

If we are to understand the scriptural writings then we have to place them in context of the times. The times we speak of and the Gospel we speak of has to do with the Jews and their conversion. The Gospel places emphasis on the House of David.

It is because this connection between Isaias 22:22 and Matthew 16:19 would have been immediately recognized as the same wording that the Jews would equate the understanding that the KEYS are of an authority like that of the Key of the House of David.

I cannot think of a better way to explain this right now...

 

[IamAdopted]

The Key in Isaias 22 is not the same Key of the KEYS in Matthew 16:19. It is a reference to what the Keys mean.

Uh and how do you suppose that?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Uh and how do you suppose that?

I am sorry but this reminds me of my 7 year old son that asks why after every answer I give.

If you read my previous posts there is ample explanation. Please refer there. If you have a more specific question then I will try to answer with some more details.

Peace,

Jack

 

[IamAdopted]

I am sorry but this reminds me of my 7 year old son that asks why after every answer I give.

If you read my previous posts there is ample explanation. Please refer there. If you have a more specific question then I will try to answer with some more details.

Peace,

Jack

It is that child like faith coming out in me.