Submission.

[Gregory Thompson]

I guess that settles it, then...I suppose we're going to be reading about post 3 as long as this thread goes, huh???

Well even if it goes beyond 1000 posts .. then it will take some explaining

 

[MoreCoffee]

I guess that settles it, then...I suppose we're going to be reading about post 3 as long as this thread goes, huh???

One hopes that the thread will not go for too long, the concept in the original post is not complex enough to warrant hundreds of posts.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble. Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. 1 Peter 3:8-9

Can you be a Christian and refuse to submit to the presbyters (priests) in the church?

So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, (overseeing) not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 1 Peter 5:1-4

Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for: God opposes the proud but bestows favour on the humble. 1 Peter 5:5

Good points. Everytime I look at scripture something else pops out at me that I might have read hundreds of times before, but just jumps out as if I had never seen it. This is one recent one.

Christians aren't even supposed to take other Christians to court! Lawsuits and such between Christian believers are shameful. We should be taking our internal problems to the Church.

1 Cor 6:1* When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! 4 If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7* To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The point is that His Church, for over 2,000 years, has interpreted it in the same way Jerome and Origen was quoted. As some point in history, the interpretation you posted was adopted by some. Perhaps you can tell us when? What you would have us believe is that the Holy Spirit is fickle and changed His mind on the meaning of this passage....a theory I refuse to believe.

Woah, woah, since when does the Catholic Church have an official interpretation for every biblical passage? Since when is Origen an authoritative voice of the church? For that matter, since when is Jerome?

And you're still not actually bothering to read the passage or engage in an actual discussion on it's interpretation. You're just grandstanding.

And I never said it was SS....I said it was the fruits of SS.

So I have the fruit without the tree? And I guess so does every critical Catholic exegete?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Eventually, if one follows the series of what-ifs to its end, one will be asking what if God proves false to his promises? A priest, a bishop, or a pope may fail to do right and in truth each has happened but the idea that priests, bishops, and pope would all conspire to fail to do what is right at the same time is getting close to expecting God's promises to fail too. In the end one relies on God's promises because he is God and he did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. That promise is like the promise that Christ would be with the faithful until the and of the ages. One relies upon God and that implies relying upon God's promises and that implies that the church really is God's church and will not be overcome by wickedness even should this or that person in the church be overcome for a time.

But the "gates of hell" metaphor is no way about the doctrine or infallibility of the church. Gates don't prevail against anything in the sense that they corrupt. It's siege imagery- and hell is the city that is under siege. The kingdom of God is like an army, with Christ as king, Peter as grand vizier, and the people of God as the troops, taking down enemy fortresses, bursting through their gates. This is about final victory, not about infallibility between Pentecost and the eschaton. To make it about doctrine, or the corruption of the church hierarchy, does violence to Christ's chosen imagery.

I do not agree with the way you interpret the gates of hell; “The gates of Hades” are generally interpreted to mean the power of the unseen world, especially the power of death: cp. Rev 1:18, “the keys of hell (Hades) and of death.” (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) But even if your stated view is correct the idea of apostolic authority is not in my opinion contained in the phrase "gates of hell" so I don't see why you brought it up. My post raised "gates of hell" as an indication that the church would not be destroyed by corrupting doctrine, people, and thus the body of Christ nor by means of external attacks such as the conquests of paganism or in later times Islam. So the gates of hell, being the powers of the unseen world, do attack the church by all sorts of means including corrupting people who in their turn may attempt to corrupt the church both in practise and in doctrine. And God's promise given through the word of Christ to saint Peter comforts christians today with the assurance that Christ is indeed with his people to guard and protect the church. So I do in fact see the promises of Christ as including promises to keep the church in truth even when the powers of the unseen world fight against her.

 

[concretecamper]

Woah, woah, since when does the Catholic Church have an official interpretation for every biblical passage? Since when is Origen an authoritative voice of the church? For that matter, since when is Jerome?

And you're still not actually bothering to read the passage or engage in an actual discussion on it's interpretation. You're just grandstanding.



So I have the fruit without the tree? And I guess so does every critical Catholic exegete?

Please do not continually misquote me. I never said Origen and Jerome were authortative. I said they reflected His Church's interpretation.

 

[Rick Otto]

But the Holy Spirit does guarantee that the truth will prevail. Still, we Catholics tend to believe in authority, not to follow blindly, but to honor the one who is in authority.

A few threads ago, we were talking about St. Jerome's thought about the Deuterocanon, because Protestants think he was adamantly anti-Deuterocanon. But even when he was, he submitted to the authority of the Church. And eventually came around to understand that the Deuterocanon is part of the Bible.

Coffee's point is about submission, where you humbly defer to those who have authority.

For example, I don't agree with the USCCB on what the general public understands as their 'stance' on illegal immigration (not that they have authority over such US laws...), but their real stance is that people should be treated with dignity, regardless of who or where they are, and to that point, I do humbly submit.

Impressively humble, to submit to that which you agree with anyway.

Regardless of the modern notion about what the gates mean, the fact remains they were standing at a place named the gates of hell.
The modern notion needs to ignore literal fact, to stand.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

More Coffee,

"Gates" are defensive. They have one function - to keep out, to stop, to hinder. Gates were placed into the walls around towns, fortresses, etc. in NT times as an extension of the walls - to keep out the enemy.

The gates of hell are thus DEFENSIVE. The expression can only mean one thing: the defenses of hell, the attempts to stop the work of Christians (the church). Of course, if you dislike what Scirpture says, you can just delete it and replace it with entirely different ones (as perhaps you are attempting to do) but I find that enormously disrespectful to God.


Note too it says NOTHING - nothing whatsoever, nothing at all - about any denomination, much less the singular, exclusive, unique, individual RC one. This verse has nothing to do with the RC Denomination.


To the topic, see post #3.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

More Coffee,

"Gates" are defensive. ...
Pax
- Josiah

In ancient times "Gates" are also where the city wise men meet and thus also connote the councils of the wise of that place; in this case of hell (Hades) and hell is the place of the dead.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Gates" are defensive. They have one function - to keep out, to stop, to hinder. Gates were placed into the walls around towns, fortresses, etc. in NT times as an extension of the walls - to keep out the enemy.

The gates of hell are thus DEFENSIVE. The expression can only mean one thing: the defenses of hell, the attempts to stop the work of Christians (the church). Of course, if you dislike what Scirpture says, you can just delete it and replace it with entirely different ones (as perhaps you are attempting to do) but I find that enormously disrespectful to God.


Note too it says NOTHING - nothing whatsoever, nothing at all - about any denomination, much less the singular, exclusive, unique, individual RC one. This verse has nothing to do with the RC Denomination.


To the topic, see post #3.


.

In ancient times "Gates" are also where the city wise men meet and thus also connote the councils of the wise of that place; in this case of hell (Hades) and hell is the place of the dead.

Maybe you could quote some dictionary that gives the following meaning:

GATE: The place where wise men gather.

Then explain why wise men in your denomination gather at the gates of HELL, specificially.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe you could quote some dictionary that gives the following meaning:

GATE: The place where wise men gather.

Try the book of Ruth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"Gates" are defensive. They have one function - to keep out, to stop, to hinder. Gates were placed into the walls around towns, fortresses, etc. in NT times as an extension of the walls - to keep out the enemy.

The gates of hell are thus DEFENSIVE. The expression can only mean one thing: the defenses of hell, the attempts to stop the work of Christians (the church). Of course, if you dislike what Scirpture says, you can just delete it and replace it with entirely different ones (as perhaps you are attempting to do) but I find that enormously disrespectful to God.


Note too it says NOTHING - nothing whatsoever, nothing at all - about any denomination, much less the singular, exclusive, unique, individual RC one. This verse has nothing to do with the RC Denomination.


To the topic, see post #3.




.

Try the book of Ruth.

Where does the Book of Ruth define "gate" as "The place wise men gather to make decisions?" And why is that offensive? And why do the "wise men" of the RC Denomination gather at the gate of HELL? Are you insisting that all the Ecumenical Councils happened not where history says but at the gate of HELL (specifically)?


To the topic, see post # 3.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[barryatlake]

Josiah, in reference to your post# 3, on subject of submissive authority, let me remind you that the Church gets her authority from Jesus to make these laws. He told the leaders of his Church, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:19, 18:18) [ Luke 10:16 ]

This language of “binding and loosing” was a Jewish phrase that meant forbidding and permitting. This pertained to the ability of scribes and Pharisees to establish rules of conduct for the faith community, and the good Jew was called by Christ to obey them (Matt. 23:3).

Since Jesus gave this authority to the leaders of his Church, they have authority, for example to do such things as establish feast days and lay down laws for the good of the Christian community

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the Church gets her authority from Jesus

Jesus never gave the RC Denomination anything. Never authorized it for anything, never exempted it from anything, never promised it anything. Exclusively/individually or otherwise.

The remarkable, egotistical, self-centered, self-serving, self-glorifying, accountability-denying, POWER GRABBING claims of the RC Denomination itself for it itself individually are simply the claims of itself for itself. Jesus has NOTHING to do with it.


See post # 3.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to saint Peter. Saint Peter was the first pope. Saint Peter gave the keys to his successor. The keys are still with the Catholic Church today. Submitting to God's order of things is part of submission to God.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to saint Peter. Saint Peter was the first pope. Saint Peter gave the keys to his successor. The keys are still with the Catholic Church today. Submitting to God's order of things is part of submission to God.

See post # 3.


1. Prove - from verbatim words of the NT - that "keys" means "unmitigated, unaccountable power to lord it over others as the gentiles do, to call all to submit to self alone as unto God alone."

2. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that these "keys" were given to Peter as an individual based on his indentity rather than as one who professed what he just did.

3. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that Peter gave these keys to someone. Record that event in the verbatim words of Scripture. Quote JESUS saying Peter could do that.

4. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that JESUS specifically told Peter that the RC Denomination could steal the "keys" from him and then re-gift them to someone else - in perpetuity.

5. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that the individual RC Denomination is indentical with the person of Peter.


See post # 3.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since Jesus did give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to saint Peter and he passed them on to his successors I reckon it is important to take what his successors say as something to be heeded. The keys are related to opening and shutting according to Isaiah's prophetic words and Jesus also gave saint Peter the power to bind and unbind as well as the power to forgive sins and to refuse forgiveness of sins so I reckon one ought to take saint Peter's successors seriously.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. Prove - from verbatim words of the NT - that "keys" means "unmitigated, unaccountable power to lord it over others as the gentiles do, to call all to submit to self alone as unto God alone."

2. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that these "keys" were given to Peter as an individual based on his indentity rather than as one who professed what he just did.

3. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that Peter gave these keys to someone. Record that event in the verbatim words of Scripture. Quote JESUS saying Peter could do that.

4. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that JESUS specifically told Peter that the RC Denomination could steal the "keys" from him and then re-gift them to someone else - in perpetuity.

5. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that the individual RC Denomination is indentical with the person of Peter.


See post # 3.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

Since Jesus did give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to saint Peter and he passed them on to his successors I reckon it

So, you can't show ANYTHING of that to be true.... You just personally "reckon" stuff. So much for "Jesus said," "Jesus did...." It's just you.... reckoning..... Okay.



See Post # 3.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The church fathers speak of the keys given to Peter and passed on to his successors.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The church fathers speak of the keys given to Peter and passed on to his successors.

1. Prove - from verbatim words of the NT - that "keys" means "unmitigated, unaccountable power to lord it over others as the gentiles do, to call all to submit to self alone as unto God alone."


2. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that these "keys" were given to Peter as an individual based on his indentity rather than as one who professed what he just did.


3. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that Jesus told Peter that he could re-gift the "keys" to whomever he chose and all you proved in #1 passes on.


4. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that Peter gave these keys to someone. Record that event in the verbatim words of Scripture.


5. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that JESUS specifically told Peter that not only could PETER re-gift these "keys" but also that the individual, exclusive RC Denomination could steal the "keys" from him and anyone else and then the RC Denomination itself (exclusively, individually) is to re-gift them to someone else - in perpetuity.


6. Prove - from the verbatim words of the NT - that the individual RC Denomination is indentical with the person of Peter; that whatever applied to Peter ergo applies fully and exclusively and individually to the RC Denomination alone.



See post # 3.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah