Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My understanding is, the power of the "keys" didn't take effect until the Church was born on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).So, he might have gotten the name and then the keys, but still not be ready to use them.
... except your Bible says Peter alone received the "keys" (Matt 16:19).So, I see how Peter possibly is not the only one who got keys from Jesus.
... which cannot be achieved without supernatural power.No. The Church Fathers state that the keys are the authority to bind and loose.
That depends on how one defines "infallible". The Catholic Church teaches that the supernatural power of the "keys" allowed Peter to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when deciding what the Church should teach (ie, dogma and doctrine) with respect to faith and morals - in other words, the means of salvation, which is the key to the kingdom of heaven.The only infallible man described by Scripture is the God-man, Jesus Christ.
Every Church Father would agree with me that no man could possibly hold "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" without being endowed with supernatural power.This is purely conjecture on your part and has no support in the Church Fathers
Exactly - only God can perform miracles, so no man can perform miracles without being endowed with God's supernatural power. Similarly, only God holds the keys to heaven, so no man can hold the keys to heaven without being endowed with God's supernatural power. Jesus gave Peter that power (Matt 16:19).Only God can heal. Only God can raise the dead. And yet, the apostles were able to do the same through being united to the God-man.
How do know that?Luke, the author of Acts, spent more time with Peter than his other Apostles
Not everything is in the Bible. The Scriptures came from the Church, the Church did not come from the Scriptures. Therefore I trust what the Church teaches about the successors of Peter as if it were Scripture.Peter died. There is no mention of a succession plan
If that's what you think the Catholic Church does, that is fair dinkum hilarious!One of the great weaknesses of modern Christianity is the concept of a professional clergy whose main responsibility is to keep Christians in the dark and ignorant of who they are in Christ
Galatians 2 says otherwise. The Holy Spirit sent Paul ("by revelation") to the Church leaders in Jerusalem in order that his preaching be examined and approved, after which he was offered "the right hand of fellowship".Paul was commissioned by the Holy Spirit, not by men. He answered to God, not to Jerusalem.
Which ALL the Apostles received.... which cannot be achieved without supernatural power.
Not remotely.That depends on how one defines "infallible".
Please quote where the Catholic Church teaches the above.The Catholic Church teaches that the supernatural power of the "keys" allowed Peter to be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when deciding what the Church should teach (ie, dogma and doctrine) with respect to faith and morals - in other words, the means of salvation, which is the key to the kingdom of heaven.
And He gave it to ALL the Apostles in Matthew 18:18Exactly - only God can perform miracles, so no man can perform miracles without being endowed with God's supernatural power. Similarly, only God holds the keys to heaven, so no man can hold the keys to heaven without being endowed with God's supernatural power. Jesus gave Peter that power (Matt 16:19).
Yet you cannot quote a single one to support your claim.Every Church Father would agree with me that no man could possibly hold "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" without being endowed with supernatural power.
And Paul returned the favour by rebuking the infallible pope Peter. Give me a break.Galatians 2 says otherwise. The Holy Spirit sent Paul ("by revelation") to the Church leaders in Jerusalem in order that his preaching be examined and approved, after which he was offered "the right hand of fellowship".
Oh, I see ... so when Jesus said, "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt 16:18), he wasn't actually directly addressing Peter, he was talking to all the apostles.
You can't be serious.
Peter alone laid the foundation of the church? I thought you said there was nothing special about him.
On the other hand, if all the apostles laid the foundation of the church, why did Jesus give the name "rock" only to Simon?
Moreover,, why did Jesus give Simon that name the very first time they met (John 1:42)?
That's exactly my point - Jesus gave Simon the name "rock" because Jesus made him God's representative on earth.
Of course not. Only God can hold "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", yet Jesus gave these "keys" to a man, Peter. In other words, God worked through Peter in a very special way. I'm not aware of anywhere else in the Bible where a man is given the keys to heaven!
You've yet to explain why Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock".
All 12 were there, but as I pointed out in a previous text, Jesus is directly addressing PETER in Matt 18-19. So only Peter received the "keys".
Which of Jesus' "principles" might that be?If Peter or any other Christian was elevated to be leader, it would have violated Jesus own principles.
Sorry, but you are making a nonsense of the text. Why on earth would Jesus DIRECTLY ADDRESS PETER in v.18 - "I also say to you that you are Peter" - if Jesus was NOT in fact addressing PETER by was addressing ALL the apostles?No, obviously "you are Peter" is addressing Peter, but everything from verse 13 to verse 18 is a lesson for all the apostles present. Verse 19 is addressed to all the apostles, all of whom received the keys of the kingdom, regardless of whether Peter received the metaphorical description of rock or not.
Firstly, the fact remains that the account in Gal 2 proves that Paul was under the authority of Peter and the other Church leaders in Jerusalem.And Paul returned the favour by rebuking the infallible pope Peter. Give me a break.
I would imagine no Church Father needed to explain what should be patently obvious to any half-intelligent adult.Yet you cannot quote a single one to support your claim.
In Matt 16:18, Jesus directly addresses PETER - "I also say to you that you are Peter". Please explain why Jesus did that, if NOTHING in verses 18 and 19 apply to PETER ALONE, but to all the apostles.And He gave it to ALL the Apostles in Matthew 18:18
So when was he named Cephas? John 1:42 or Mat 16:18 because those timelines don't agree.John 1:42 describes the very first time Jesus met Simon, who became an apostle (aka Peter). Jesus said to Simon, "You are Simon, the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which translates as 'Peter' and means 'rock')".
Why did Jesus give the name "rock" to a man he'd just met ... in fact it was the very first thing he ever said to him!
You don't know? Well, here's a hint: Read Matt 16:18
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?