Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

It's still going on by you - 40 pages after I stopped using the term.

The funny thing is that I was gone for pretty much a full day. I came back this morning and read post after post - page after page - of other people still going on about this topic even though I wasn't there.

It's very simple, CJ. Stop imposing your definitions on my terms, and I won't object to it.

And if someone uses a slur, then either condemn it yourself, or allow other people to object to it without presuming to tell others how they should feel about it.

This is by far the stupidest conversation I have had around here in a long time. We are now arguing about what we are arguing about. Aren't you bored by it? I am.

LittleLambofJesus · May 22, 2009

ooops....looks like I stepped in at the wrong time

CaliforniaJosiah · May 22, 2009

WarriorAngel said:
THE only reason Jesus obtained the keys was because He became human. These are human keys....for earth and authority.
Notice it didnt say He would already have the keys in Isaias... because He had to become human, and doing so He took the keys in humanity and handed them back to His new Authority on earth.

1. See post 792, which you've yet to respond to.

2. Where does Scripture say that Jesus got the keys of Isaiah? Where were they for 800 years?

3. Where does Isaiah say that Jesus gave them to the College of Cardinals of the specific RCC?

Revelation 3

6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. 7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.

IF you really slowly read this, Jesus is speaking [for one thing] and then He tells us it is the ONE whom HE gave the keys to...whom He loves.
AND when the whole world is being tested - only this one will remain faithful to Him.
BECAUSE as He promised in the beginning to KEEP the gates of hell from prevailing - again HE says He will keep him from the hour of temptation [the end of the world] which be upon the whole world.

IF you actually read it, several things are relevant:

1. Jesus is speaking to the Christians in Philadelphia, not the Pope in Rome.

2. Jesus says NOTHING about giving anyone His keys. He says that HE opens the door, not whoever happens to be the choice of the RCC College of Cardinals for the bishop of the specific, particular, individual Catholic diocese of Rome.

3. Jesus doesn't mention diocese or Bishop or Rome or infallible or supreme or unaccountable or power or authority or lordship.

The Chair of Peter has not been 'invented'...it always was and will be.

That's your task - to substantiate that. Care to take a shot at it? I hope so!

.

Albion · May 22, 2009

Ah, we're back on track!

Now...we return to their theory. This is the only one that they will consider. The discussion is just this: What's wrong with you for not believing in it?

That it is unproven or false is not an answer, remember.

Begin!

sunlover1 · May 22, 2009

JoabAnias said:
Riiiight.

Nope I mean my/THE Churches. We wrote it, we are the authors. We know what it means. We preserve its meaning, not profane it.

Exactly. Its a blasphemy to profane what my Bible means. It offends Jesus.

I would hope so too if I was in such a position.

The ideal:

John 17-21: That they may be one, as thou Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that (as a consequence) the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.

(What it means to really care to witness for Jesus).

I would be hoping for this:

John 10-16: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Because if thats not the case we could wind up with this:

Matt. 7-21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

And everything else my Bible points to like:

Mark 16-16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit, Whom Christ promised to His Church (John 14:16 and 26).

Our Lord's own presence in the Church, according to His specific promise. (Matt. 28:20, John 6)

Of course, I believe has this all been said before so there is only one alternative left:

Titus 3-10: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.

Gal. 1-8: But though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal. 1-9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received let him be accursed.

Rom. 16-17: Now I beseech you brethren mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

2 John 10: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.

= Obedience to God.

I get it. I'm sharper than you thought.
But you've called God's child a liar and
evidently a bastard.
No problem, I have another cheek,
but my Lord, who runs the show,
He loves me so much that He died for me.

Forgive them Father, they truly know not what they do, or they wouldnt do it..

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

For those who contend that Romish not commonly accepted as a slur...here is its definition from Webster's. Notice the ONLY context is one of a usually disparaging nature.

romish

One entry found.

Main Entry: Rom·ish

Pronunciation: \ˈrō-mish\ Function: adjective Date: 1531 usually disparaging : roman catholic
— Rom·ish·ly adverb usually disparaging
— Rom·ish·ness noun usually disparaging

And from the Free Online Dictionary. It is noted as an OFFENSIVE adjective:

Rom·ish (r m sh)

adj. Offensive

Of or relating to the Roman Catholic Church.

Rom ish·ly adv.
Rom ish·ness n.

And here is from the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology and found on Encylopedia.com. This definition notes that it is "chiefly in hostile use":

Romish

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

Romish Roman Catholic (chiefly in hostile use). XVI. f. Rome (seat of the papal see) + -ISH1.

So people in GT will just have to excuse my hyper-sensitive persecution complex if I happen to object to a word that even secular dictionaries define as a slur.

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

I sincerely hope my latest post is the last one on that topic.

Can we get back to the OP please?

CaliforniaJosiah · May 22, 2009

NewMan99 said:
WHICH word did I depart this discussion about? Which word, CJ? Tell me.

Here's what I posted:

Josiah said:
Friend, I NEVER said that Catholics are a denomination, I said The Catholic Church is. Just as Lutherans are not a denomination, but The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is. I've given you the definitions of how I (and everyone else known to me) use the term. Why do you rehash all that NOW?

I noted to you, I do NOT use the term in a negative, insulting or disgusting manner - so YOU are IMPUTING offense where I have extensively and clearly informed you NONE is intended and where you KNOW none is intended, implied, meant or conveyed. You are MAKING a problem where you KNOW none exists. Unfortunate, IMHO.

I gave you the definition I use. I told you of that least one respected Catholic around here agrees that the RCC is a denomination. My friend, I've told you I use the term in the common theological manner and mean NO offense; indeed, I told you that I mean EXACTLY the opposite since, as I told you and as you know, I support and embrace community and thus, as you know, I support and embrace and celebrate congregations and their denominations.

So, please, my brother, please don't impute offense where you know it is not intended or implied.

Can we get back to our discussion?

Here is your response:

NewMan99 said:
Frankly CJ, between your last post and post #450 I have decided that trying to communicate with you in a civil and edifying manner is utterly impossible. I will post the rest of my evidence as I promised, but I have no desire to continue with a dialog with you

NewMan99 said:
It's very simple, CJ. Stop imposing your definitions on my terms, and I won't object to it.

My unseparated brother in Christ, it's you that inverted a term I used into something entirely foreign to my use and then chose to regard it as "offensive, insulting, disgusting," etc - a personal affront to YOU. You knew how I used the term ___________ and that I use it in a very positive, celebratory manner becuase I told you. You know how the term is commonly used because I referred you to an entire thread - with common dictionary definitions and a discussion about this, including by Catholics. But, in spite of knowing how I meant the term (and after some time of all this seemingly being resolved), you brought it up again - noting how "insulting and discusting" MY use of the term ___________ is. Friend, you were imposing YOUR definition, offense, insult and disgust ON ME - in spite of KNOWING that I did not mean, intend, imply, convey or suggest anything negative whatsoever, in fact, your knowing the exact opposite.

And when I reminded you of that, what was your reply? "In light of what you just said, I'm ceasing all discussion with you!"

Now, you became even more offended when I mentioned your Catechism and it's instruction to "put the best construction on things" and to apply Christian charity, and that at times, FOR THE SAKE OF THE IMPORTANT DISCUSSION, it may be good to do that, rather than terminating a potentially very valuable ecumenical conversation because one chooses to become "disgusted" over a term. I DO understand that you found my counsel there so highly and emotionally revolting, but I did not say you should do that, I ONLY laid it out there in a general sense: which you were free to take or leave, and you rather passionately rebuked me for it. Okay. No problem. You left. That's fine.

The oddity I brought up is that Tonks (a high level NON PROTESTANT staffer), in an official CF announcement, used the exact same word I did, _________________. And didn't define it so as to be very clear to you that it's an excellent, positive, celebratory term. And DID connect it directly to the RCC. And yet my expectation is that you would NOT go on and on and on and on with Tonks about how insulted, offended, disgusted you were that he used the term ____________________. You'd pretty much let it pass. And was right. I just find that.... well. Noteworthy.

Thank you.

May God's richest blessing be upon you and yours in this holy season of victory and life.

Pax

- Josiah

.

.

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

Get over it, CJ. I departed because too many people were rationalizing the use of a slur (Romish) and accusing me of thin skin over it. Trust me, you should be glad I left. Had I stayed I would have used language far strong than I did.

Standing Up · May 22, 2009

FWIW: Link to seat of Moses article

Sitting in the Seat of Moses

LittleLambofJesus · May 22, 2009

NewMan99 said:
Get over it, CJ. I departed because too many people were rationalizing the use of a slur (Romish) and accusing me of thin skin over it. Trust me, you should be glad I left. Had I stayed I would have used language far strong than I did.

Greetings NM. I leave and come back all the time....my user name should be "yo yo"

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

2. Where does Scripture say that Jesus got the keys of Isaiah?

Read the actual text of Isaiah 22:15-25, CJ:

Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the LORD will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, 18 and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master's house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."

This passage comes from a vision from God to Isaiah using imagery that the Davidic kingdom would understand.

In this vision, who gave the "keys of Isaiah" to Eli'akim in the first place? GOD did. They are GOD'S keys...and hence JESUS had/has them. The keys belong to the King of Kings, and hence his Prime Minister, who rules because it is God's Will.

Where were they for 800 years?

Where was God for 800 years?

3. Where does Isaiah say that Jesus gave them to the College of Cardinals of the specific RCC?

This is an anachronistic question. And we don't claim that the Pope has to come from the RCC. The Pope can come from any Church in Communion with the Holy See. There have been many Popes who came from one of the Eastern Churches. And the College of Cardinals didn't exist until a few centuries ago - as the STYLE of how the Pope is chosen developed in response to the needs of the given era.

NewMan99 · May 22, 2009

LittleLambofJesus said:
Greetings NM. I leave and come back all the time....my user name should be "yo yo"

I had to leave because discretion is supposedly the better part of valor. I was getting angry and one should never post in anger. It is better to walk away for a period of time and then come back later if it makes sense. I had to cool down.

Trento · May 22, 2009

Standing Up said:
NewMan99 wrote: "Why is it always the Roman Church instructing and teaching other churches and NEVER the other way around?

If the papacy was unknown, then why would Polycarp travel all the way to Rome as an 85 year old man to PLEAD with the Bishop of Rome? Why didn't the Churches in Asia just do what they wanted to do without caring what the Bishop of Rome had to say? "

It is an interesting distinction the two traditions that keep coming up from among those early writers. One was Rome; one was the Quartodecimans.

Polycarp went to Rome to correct it. Here's Irenaeus from a fragment, making your same point of Clement and Corinth with Polycarp and the churches:

Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. And I can bear witness before God, that if that blessed and apostolical presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, exclaiming as he was wont to do: O good God, for what times have You reserved me, that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the very spot where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. This fact, too, can be made clear, from his Epistles which he despatched, whether to the neighbouring Churches to confirm them, or to certain of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.

The argument was made elsewhere that Polycarp was keeping to the Old and Clement to the New. The facts appear just the opposite. Interesting!

Eusebius ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 207

CHAPTER XXIII.

The question then agitated respecting the passover.*

There was a considerable discussion raised about this time,
in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observ-
ance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by
a remote tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the four-
teenth day of the moon for the festival of the Saviour's passover,
in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb ;
and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of
the fast on this day, on whatever day of the week it should hap
pen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this
manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who
observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition
until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate
our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Sa-
viour. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops
on this question ; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical
decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places,
that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated
on no other day than the Lord's-day ; and that on this day alone
we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an
epistle extant even now, of those who were assembled at the time;
among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Ce-
sarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem.
CHAPTER XXV.

All agree to one opinion respecting the passover.

The bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just men
doned. Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the
bishop of the church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those
that came together with them, having advanced many things
respecting the t>radition that had been handed down to them by
succession from the apostles, regarding the passover, at the close
of the epistle, use these words : " Endeavour to send copies of
the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion
to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you
also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we
also do ; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them
to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at
one time."

CaliforniaJosiah · May 22, 2009

NewMan99 said:
In this vision, who gave the "keys of Isaiah" to Eli'akim in the first place? GOD did. They are GOD'S keys...and hence JESUS had/has them. The keys belong to the King of Kings, and hence his Prime Minister, who rules because it is God's Will.

Ah, so GOD had them.
And God STILL has them. I see....
And that documents what about the current bishop of the diocese of Rome?

Now, I'm wondering, where does this text say that God gave them to Eliakim and thus all the successors of Eliakim still have them to this day? I'm wondering about the 800 years between Eliakim and Jesus, as well as the 2000 years since Jesus - and those keys; what does this text state about that?

What happened to those keys when Eliakim died, according to the text?

What does this text state about Peter? And about what happened when Peter died?

Where does Scripture say that the bishop of the singular diocese of Rome is Jesus' Prime Minister?

Is a Prime Minister infallible, supreme over all?

Thank you!

This is an anachronistic question. And we don't claim that the Pope has to come from the RCC. The Pope can come from any Church in Communion with the Holy See. There have been many Popes who came from one of the Eastern Churches. And the College of Cardinals didn't exist until a few centuries ago - as the STYLE of how the Pope is chosen developed in response to the needs of the given era.

Well, what I'm curious about is how that Isaiah passage gets to the critical issue of taking the keys away from the one to whom (exclusivly, personally) the king gives them and giving them to one to whom the king did not. Perpetually. How, exactly, did that work with Elikim? Where does the text define that? And I'm STILL wondering where Isaiah said ANYTHING relevant to our topic? He's speaking of a specific situation with a specific king and individual over 2800 years ago, it seems to me. Now, maybe (if I can venture a guess), the point is that 2800 years ago, a king gave "keys" to a man - and that seems to ahve some authority associated with it. And I agree, if a king did that once, it would be theoretically possible to happen again. Now, what does that have to do with Pope Benedict? No one denies that the Dogma of the Catholic Papacy is POSSIBLE - for all things are POSSIBLE. The issue is solely this: Is it true? How does this Isaiah text substantiate that?

Thank you!

Pax

.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 22, 2009

Trento said:
Eusebius ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 207

Trento said:
CHAPTER XXIII.

The question then agitated respecting the passover.*

There was a considerable discussion raised about this time,
in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observ-
ance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by
a remote tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the four-
teenth day of the moon for the festival of the Saviour's passover,
in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb ;
and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of
the fast on this day, on whatever day of the week it should hap
pen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this
manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world,who
observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition
until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate
our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Sa-
viour. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops
on this question ; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical
decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places,
that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated
on no other day than the Lord's-day ; and that on this day alone
we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an
epistle extant even now, of those who were assembled at the time;
among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Ce-
sarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem.
CHAPTER XXV.

All agree to one opinion respecting the passover.

The bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just men
doned. Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the
bishop of the church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those
that came together with them, having advanced many things
respecting the t>radition that had been handed down to them by
succession from the apostles, regarding the passover, at the close
of the epistle, use these words : " Endeavour to send copies of
the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion
to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you
also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we
also do ; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them
to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at
one time."

Thank you, but I'm entirely lost....

What in the world does this man's opinion have to do with supplying documentation for the Dogma of the Catholic Papacy? How does it substantiate that from 30 AD, all regarded whoever was the bishop of the specific, singular, particular diocese of Rome as THEREBY the unique holder of Peter's "keys" and thus SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, powerful over all and lord of all Christian?

Could you let me know how this opinion (what's the date of this book, BTW) substantiates the Dogma of the Papacy?

Thanks!!!

Pax

- Josiah

.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 22, 2009

NewMan99 said:
Get over it, CJ.

... that's all you have to say.... :o

Originally Posted by NewMan99

WHICH word did I depart this discussion about? Which word, CJ? Tell me.

Here's what I posted:

Originally Posted by Josiah

Friend, I NEVER said that Catholics are a denomination, I said The Catholic Church is. Just as Lutherans are not a denomination, but The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod is. I've given you the definitions of how I (and everyone else known to me) use the term. Why do you rehash all that NOW?

I noted to you, I do NOT use the term in a negative, insulting or disgusting manner - so YOU are IMPUTING offense where I have extensively and clearly informed you NONE is intended and where you KNOW none is intended, implied, meant or conveyed. You are MAKING a problem where you KNOW none exists. Unfortunate, IMHO.

I gave you the definition I use. I told you of that least one respected Catholic around here agrees that the RCC is a denomination. My friend, I've told you I use the term in the common theological manner and mean NO offense; indeed, I told you that I mean EXACTLY the opposite since, as I told you and as you know, I support and embrace community and thus, as you know, I support and embrace and celebrate congregations and their denominations.

So, please, my brother, please don't impute offense where you know it is not intended or implied.

Can we get back to our discussion?

Here is your response:

Originally Posted by NewMan99

Frankly CJ, between your last post and post #450 I have decided that trying to communicate with you in a civil and edifying manner is utterly impossible. I will post the rest of my evidence as I promised, but I have no desire to continue with a dialog with you

There's the answer....

Originally Posted by NewMan99

It's very simple, CJ. Stop imposing your definitions on my terms.

My unseparated brother in Christ, it's you that inverted a term I used into something entirely foreign to my use and then chose to regard it as "offensive, insulting, disgusting," etc - a personal affront to YOU. You knew how I used the term ___________ and that I use it in a very positive, celebratory manner becuase I told you. You know how the term is commonly used because I referred you to an entire thread - with common dictionary definitions and a discussion about this, including by Catholics. But, in spite of knowing how I meant the term (and after some time of all this seemingly being resolved), you brought it up again - noting how "insulting and discusting" MY use of the term ___________ is. Friend, you were imposing YOUR definition, offense, insult and disgust ON ME - in spite of KNOWING that I did not mean, intend, imply, convey or suggest anything negative whatsoever, in fact, your knowing the exact opposite.

And when I reminded you of that, what was your reply? "In light of what you just said, I'm ceasing all discussion with you!"

Now, you became even more offended when I mentioned your Catechism and it's instruction to "put the best construction on things" and to apply Christian charity, and that at times, FOR THE SAKE OF THE IMPORTANT DISCUSSION, it may be good to do that, rather than terminating a potentially very valuable ecumenical conversation because one chooses to become "disgusted" over a term. I DO understand that you found my counsel there so highly and emotionally revolting, but I did not say you should do that, I ONLY laid it out there in a general sense: which you were free to take or leave, and you rather passionately rebuked me for it. Okay. No problem. You left. That's fine.

The oddity I brought up is that Tonks (a high level NON PROTESTANT staffer), in an official CF announcement, used the exact same word I did, _________________. And didn't define it so as to be very clear to you that it's an excellent, positive, celebratory term. And DID connect it directly to the RCC. And yet my expectation is that you would NOT go on and on and on and on with Tonks about how insulted, offended, disgusted you were that he used the term ____________________. You'd pretty much let it pass. And was right. I just find that.... well.... revealing.

Thank you.

May God's richest blessing be upon you and yours in this holy season of victory and life.

Pax

- Josiah

Trento · May 22, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Thank you, but I'm entirely lost....

What in the world does this man's opinion have to do with supplying documentation for the Dogma of the Catholic Papacy? How does it substantiate that from 30 AD, all regarded whoever was the bishop of the specific, singular, particular diocese of Rome as THEREBY the unique holder of Peter's "keys" and thus SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, powerful over all and lord of all Christian?

Could you let me know how this opinion (what's the date of this book, BTW) substantiates the Dogma of the Papacy?

Thanks!!!

Pax

- Josiah

.

You should be lost since i'm not responding to you. This is evidence on how well you read posts.

LittleLambofJesus · May 22, 2009

Trento said:
You should be lost since i'm not responding to you.

I sometimes get "lost" on this thread to

YouTube - Robot x Dr. Smith, Part 1 of 7 (english)

WarriorAngel · May 22, 2009

CaliforniaJosiah said:
[/color]

1. See post 792, which you've yet to respond to.

2. Where does Scripture say that Jesus got the keys of Isaiah? Where were they for 800 years?

3. Where does Isaiah say that Jesus gave them to the College of Cardinals of the specific RCC?

IF you actually read it, several things are relevant:

1. Jesus is speaking to the Christians in Philadelphia, not the Pope in Rome.

2. Jesus says NOTHING about giving anyone His keys. He says that HE opens the door, not whoever happens to be the choice of the RCC College of Cardinals for the bishop of the specific, particular, individual Catholic diocese of Rome.

3. Jesus doesn't mention diocese or Bishop or Rome or infallible or supreme or unaccountable or power or authority or lordship.

That's your task - to substantiate that. Care to take a shot at it? I hope so!

.

MAYBE the misunderstanding of what the keys mean is the problem.

The keys for opening and shutting are put into the hands of man and ordained by God for their use. They are God's keys for man's use. IE - so we know what He wants for man.
This is how Moses could set up laws - and Jesus told us it was because of man's hard hearts that Moses did this.

BUT Jesus said - [such in the case of divorce] that this is not the way it should be.
BUT also - to obey the ones who sit on the Chair.
It was mentioned in Isaias the keys of David - but like baptism and water it is symbolism that man can understand and uphold. JUST like when Jesus took mud to open the blind man's eyes.
DID He really need mud? No. He used a symbol... to show the reality.

What does that mean???
It means that the man who has the keys - can open and shut. OR give authoritively the doctrines for man to follow.

Obviously they are used so man can have the doctrines from God and Heaven will uphold to those doctrines - just as earth will uphold to the Heavenly doctrines...which speaks of infallibility because it was already shown Heaven will uphold the standards given to man to follow AND the seriousness to obeying the ones with those keys..

The Jews were given the keys via Moses and his chair...and it was thru David's obedience they understood the keys.
Jesus came as man to obtain the keys in the hands of human form [for and of man] and passed them on to the NEW covenant and Chair which was directly from Moses to Peter via GOD in the form of the Messiah....and like the chair of Moses, for those who sat on it in succession.

HOW else could Jesus tell man that Moses allowed them out of their hard hearts to divorce - but yet disagree with it, and yet tell the disciples and the multitude to do as they say in obedience??

It would seem like He contradicted Himself - but He didnt.
He didnt because the chair had authority - and they were under the laws of Moses who was given all such authority. And even tho God Himself - He obeyed the laws.

IF He must obey the laws to be sacrificed sinless - and He passes on the chair and keys to a man to be obeyed - how are we following His lead if we refuse to follow the one He Himself set up to be obeyed??

Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Beloved, Let us love one another

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Well-Known Member

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

On and on

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

I close my eyes and see you smile

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency