The Primacy Of Peter

[simonthezealot]

anyone reading the thread above can see how silly your response is.

You were caught red-handed distorting the word of god.

Go back and read it yourself!

What pray tell are you talking about, seems to me your the one twisting scripture for your own purposes...
Jesus is saying if they listen to you My Apostles, then they're listening to Me. If they reject you, they're rejecting Me. If they reject Me they're rejecting the Father that sent Me.

It has nothing to do with the "key" to heaven NOR apostolic succession if thats what your hinting at.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Eliakim is a type of Christ.
Eliakim held the keys to the earthly treasures--old covenant

Christ holds the keys to the heavenly treasures --New covenant

Don't place Peter in Christs' spot, even he will tell 1 Peter 5:4 who's whom.

Jesus left Peter in charge of his kingdom here when he gave Peter the Keys and told him to take care of sheep so i need not do what Jesus already did.

 

[tblaine74]

So your saying that Rev 3:7, they are speaking of Peter then also? It's pretty clear to me who he is talking about. And this is a direct quote of ISA 22:22 that Christ is using.

I agree that it is pretty clear. What is not clear is how you are reconciling this with what we are discussing. Are you supposing some hidden inference somewhere, which states that Jesus cannot do with the keys as he will? Of course He holds the keys, he is the King of Heaven. What is being suggested here is that He intended his parallel to Isaiah 22, when He said what is written in Matthew 16, in which case He, as king, and having every rite to do so, conferred the keys to Simon in institution as steward, in parallel with the same occurrence in Isaiah. Just look at what one does to deny this: You claim that Jesus was not addressing Peter so much as his admission, despite the indication of their exchange, and despite the disastrous logical consequences of this to the very substance of what the keys could possibly mean (as noted in prior posts). There is apparently nothing special about the first known instance in history of a man’s name being changed to “rock”. In order to proliferate the reference to keys, the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is employed (as noted in prior posts) in reference to Matthew 18:18.

 

[Brennin]

In order to proliferate the reference to keys, the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent is employed (as noted in prior posts) in reference to Matthew 18:18.

You keep claiming this but have yet to demonstrate it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Eliakim held the key to the house of David because it was given to him by the King of the house of David. Are you suggesting that Jesus holds the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven because they were given to him by the King of Heaven? Is Christ not the King of Heaven? I don’t think you have followed the implications of your parallel. Eliakim is not a type of Christ, he was only a steward, he is a type of Peter.

Read the Gospel of Matthew and the very first thing you read is that Jesus is the Son of David. That means Jesus is the King of the Davidic Kingdom as prophesied. So Jesus then has the power to bestow the Keys on anyone he chooses.

In Matthew 16 when Simon is the one to step up state that Jesus is the Christos or the Son of Man, Jesus says that his Father gave this to Peter and just as Peter called Jesus Chrstos then Jesus gives Simon a name Kepha. It is also known that at no time in history before this was anyone called Kepha.

So what is happening in the Gospel of Matthew is that proof is being provided that Jesus is the Christos and fulfills the prophesies of the Son of David and so Jesus is the King of the Davidic Kingdom. Since his kingdom is eternal there will be no one else taking the throne. Matthew 16 is where Jesus appoints Peter as the Steward of the Kingdom as we see someone filling a vacant seat for steward in Isaiah 22 and receiving the Keys.

It is how things were done in the Davidic kingdom before Christ and Jesus kept that tradition with Peter when he took the throne.

Shalom

 

[Brennin]

Jesus left Peter in charge of his kingdom here when he gave Peter the Keys and told him to take care of sheep so i need not do what Jesus already did.

Which is a responsibility he soon extended to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So your saying that Rev 3:7, they are speaking of Peter then also? It's pretty clear to me who he is talking about. And this is a direct quote of ISA 22:22 that Christ is using.

Rev 3:7And2532tothe3588angel32ofthe3588church1577in1722Philadelphia5359write;1125These things3592saith3004he that is holy,40he that is true,228he that hath2192the3588key2807of David,1138he that openeth,455and2532no man3762shutteth;2808and2532shutteth,2808and2532no man3762openeth;455

Very 'Christmasy'.

Of course it is Jesus for the Keys belong to him. However even though he owns the Keys for it is his kingdom he can place them on the shoulder of his steward so all will know who is acting in his stead until he returns.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Which is a responsibility he soon extended to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18.

A partial responsibility. Of course they received the power to loose and bind. But they did not receive the Keys. Just like in all the history of the Davidic Kingdom there was but one Minister that held the Keys and displayed them on his shoulder and it was this one that was ther Prime Minister (so to speak). All the other Ministers in the Davidic kingdom could loose and bind but the Prime Minister could bind what they loosed and loose what they bound.

 

[tblaine74]

You keep claiming this but have yet to demonstrate it.

Okay Brennin, I’ll jump through your hoop if you require being spoon fed. A grants B does not ensure that B grants A, affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. The possession of keys granting authority to bind and loose does not ensure that the authority to bind and loose grants possession of keys, the affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. Your interpretation of Matthew 18:18 is based on logical fallacy.

 

[Brennin]

Okay Brennin, I’ll jump through your hoop if you require being spoon fed.

I do not require being spoon fed. I require people to back up their claims.

A grants B does not ensure that B grants A, affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. The possession of keys granting authority to bind and loose does not ensure that the authority to bind and loose grants possession of keys, the affirmation of the latter as following from the former is logical fallacy. Your interpretation of Matthew 18:18 is based on logical fallacy.

Your error lies in your inability to perceive that the "if" is really an "if and only if." Can bind and loose <=> possess keys.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Brennin]

A partial responsibility. Of course they received the power to loose and bind. But they did not receive the Keys. Just like in all the history of the Davidic Kingdom there was but one Minister that held the Keys and displayed them on his shoulder and it was this one that was ther Prime Minister (so to speak). All the other Ministers in the Davidic kingdom could loose and bind but the Prime Minister could bind what they loosed and loose what they bound.

That is, of course, a load of bald assertions and nonsense. You can't bind/lock or loose/unlock without keys. (Unless you want to entertain the possibility that Jesus gave the other apostles lockpicks.) Binding and loosing is not something separate from the keys, the desperate apologia of your church notwithstanding.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That is, of course, a load of bald assertions and nonsense. You can't bind/lock or loose/unlock without keys. (Unless you want to entertain the possibility that Jesus gave the other apostles lockpicks.) Binding and loosing is not something separate from the keys, the desperate apologia of your church notwithstanding.

First the Keys are not something you hold in your hand for they are but a symbol of the power given to that person as being the holder of the keys. But these keys can be used by others as well but they always go back to the one that the King gave them to. And it is the one entrusted with the Keys that has the supreme authority of those that can bind and loose.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I was trying to think of another analogy to binding and loosing and thought I may have soemthing...

Int he USA we have judges at different levels and all these judges have the power to bind and loose in court matter. However a judge at the state level is different than a judge at the federal level. The federal level takes precedent over State level and so it over rules State level if State ever has soemthing contradictory.

This is similiar to the Keys in that the one holder them takes precedent in any cases of contradiction.

 

[Brennin]

First the Keys are not something you hold in your hand for they are but a symbol of the power given to that person as being the holder of the keys. But these keys can be used by others as well but they always go back to the one that the King gave them to. And it is the one entrusted with the Keys that has the supreme authority of those that can bind and loose.

Jesus made duplicates.

 

[tblaine74]

Your error lies in your inability to perceive that the "if" is really an "if and only if." Can bind and loose <=> possess keys.

Thanks for playing.

Are you going to provide the basis for this “perception”? If this is a game of logic, then you have yet to begin playing. Can you even explain what difference “if” and “if and only if” makes here? Or did you just like the sound of your statement?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jesus made duplicates.

LOL!

That is funny.

Do you know how the goverment works in the Davidic Kingdom? From all I have read they had a King and the King had ministers. His ministers would see to the affairs of his kingdom. Each minister would be responsible for a different territory and each minister would act with the authority of the King and so they had the power to bind and loose. The King also has one minister that he placed above all the other ministers and this minister carried the Keys to the Kingdom. The Keys were more of a show of his authority. This minister would be the steward of the Kingdom and when the King was away he would act in stead of the King. Because of this he not only had power to bind and loose but just like the King he could loose what was bound by the minister(s) and bind what was loosed by the minister(s) of various regions.

You see how the hierarchy worked and how the Keys were a symbol much like a crown is a symbol?

 

[Brennin]

Are you going to provide the basis for this &#8220;perception&#8221;? If this is a game of logic, then you have yet to begin playing. Can you even explain what difference &#8220;if&#8221; and &#8220;if and only if&#8221; makes here? Or did you just like the sound of your statement?

If you don't know what difference iff makes then you should not have presumed to lecture me in the first place.

The implication goes both ways:

If one has the keys then he can bind and loose.

If one can bind and loose then he has the keys.

You can't bind/lock or unbind/unlock without a key.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

If you don't know what difference iff makes then you should not have presumed to lecture me in the first place.

The implication goes both ways:

If one has the keys then he can bind and loose.

If one can bind and loose then he has the keys.

You can't bind/lock or unbind/unlock without a key.

Isn't much of what the keys are used for is to decide in matters of faith and mroals such as someone asking forgiveness?

And I believe that Jesus has opened the Gates of Heaven and they will not be closed again since he has saved us. So I do not think that this is a good example of what is being said with the binding amd loosing or opening and closing. Instead try to look at it more legally speaking. After all the commandments of God and sin use much legalizeaze type writings. To forgive or pay a debt are types of things said in court. When people went to settle disputes they went to a minister to settle the dispute and the minister would bind and loose in these cases. One could say that in a trial for someone that owes a debt that they are bound to the debt or loosed from it. Correct?

Just as with sins. If we ask Jesus to forgive us our sins he can loose us from that penalty or he can bind us to it. So when the Apostles were told they could forgive sins this was also a power of binding and loosing. Right?

 

[tblaine74]

Your error lies in your inability to perceive that the "if" is really an "if and only if." Can bind and loose <=> possess keys.

Thanks for playing.

I took liberty to do your homework for you. So then, one possesses the keys if and only if one can bind and loose. I see no contradictions to this in scripture. Though how are you going to affirm the consequent? We have the same problem. One can bind and loose if and only if one possesses the keys. Matthew 18:18 contradicts this, Jesus confers this authority without mention of the keys. Incidentally, the only way you have been able to interject the keys is via the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Its MP3 time.

Here is a link to an mp3 of an epsode of "Catholic Answers Live". The guest on this show is Dr. Scott Hahn, and he discusses the Pope, the Magisterium, and Scripture, and also answers questions from callers:
http://www.catholic.com/audio/1998/mp3/ca980706.mp3