The Primacy Of Peter

[tblaine74]

My last was a silly question, as you are not questioning this. You are suggesting that what was meant was meant for all of the apostles. Aside from the fact that, in the gospels, Jesus never says what is written in Isaiah 22:22 to the other apostles, let’s consider the possibility. This is a consideration of 12 simultaneous prime ministers of the Kingdom. What is prime about a minister who has 11 equals?

 

[Brennin]

My last was a silly question, as you are not questioning this. You are suggesting that what was meant was meant for all of the apostles. Aside from the fact that, in the gospels, Jesus never says what is written in Isaiah 22:22 to the other apostles, let’s consider the possibility. This is a consideration of 12 simultaneous prime ministers of the Kingdom. What is prime about a minister who has 11 equals?

That should tell you the analogy you have taken up is false. Peter was not a "prime minister" but a "first among equals."

 

[tblaine74]

What are you talking about? Isaiah 22:22 does not refer to Peter. And, as I previously wrote, the same authority is given to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18, which knocks down the house-of-straw RC claims.

So when Jesus spoke to Simon He had no idea that what He was saying had already been said to Eliakim?

 

[Brennin]

So when Jesus spoke to Simon He had no idea that what He was saying had already been said to Eliakim?

Did Jesus say this to Peter:

Isaiah 22
22I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.




No, he did not.

 

[tblaine74]

That should tell you the analogy you have taken up is false. Peter was not a "prime minister" but a "first among equals."

So your belief disproves the meaning of the words Jesus used? That is an interesting argument.

 

[tblaine74]

Did Jesus say this to Peter:

Isaiah 22
22I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.




No, he did not.

So you are going to ignore the parellel in favor of...your belief?

 

[Brennin]

So you are going to ignore the parellel in favor of...your belief?

There is a parallel but nothing more. What you are trying to accomplish with this flailing is beyond me.

 

[Brennin]

So your belief disproves the meaning of the words Jesus used? That is an interesting argument.

And what words did Jesus use? Post a verbatim citation for us.

 

[tblaine74]

Isaiah 22:22 (New International Version)

I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Matthew 16:19 (New International Version)

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

What a miraculous accident Matthew 16:19 was.

 

[Brennin]

Isaiah 22:22 (New International Version)

I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Matthew 16:19 (New International Version)

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

What a miraculous accident Matthew 16:19 was.

Matthew 16:19 was not an accident. Nor was Matthew 18:18, where the same authority is extended to all of the apostles. What is miraculous, though, is that you think you have a point.

 

[tblaine74]

Matthew 16:19 was not an accident. Nor was Matthew 18:18, where the same authority is extended to all of the apostles. What is miraculous, though, is that you think you have a point.

First of all let me apologize for the tone of my previous posts. As I read them I am aware of a rather sarcastic tone. I will blame that on the hour.

I have addressed the redundant parts of your last post already. As for your admission that “Matthew 16:19 was not an accident”, we can then admit the converse: Mathew 16:19 was intentional. Why then would Jesus intent the parallel of Isaiah 22:22 without intending the meaning?

 

[Brennin]

First of all let me apologize for the tone of my previous posts. As I read them I am aware of a rather sarcastic tone. I will blame that on the hour.

I have addressed the redundant parts of your last post already. As for your admission that “Matthew 16:19 was not an accident”, we can then admit the converse: Mathew 16:19 was intentional. Why then would Jesus intent the parallel of Isaiah 22:22 without intending the meaning?

The parallel is nothing special. But since you are trying to extend it beyond what it can reasonably bear, allow me to develop it further. Isaiah 22:22 speaks of a steward who exceeded his authority, so he was stripped of his authority and it was given to another. This is clearly a prophecy concerning the power-mongering papacy, and it shows God's displeasure with the institution and his revocation of its authority!

 

[tblaine74]

The parallel is nothing special. But since you are trying to extend it beyond what it can reasonably bear, allow me to develop it further. Isaiah 22:22 speaks of a steward who exceeded his authority, so he was stripped of his authority and it was given to another. This is clearly a prophecy concerning the power-mongering papacy, and it shows God's displeasure with the institution and his revocation of its authority!

Have you read the previous posts in this thread? Yes the steward was stripped of his position. The whole point is that it was a dynastic position. After it was stripped, it needed to be filled, and it was filled. It was filled by the new steward Eliakim via the passing of the key.

Here’s something of an illustration of the parallel:

Isaiah 22:22

Hezekiah (Davidic King of Israel)
Eliakim (Steward) – given key to house of David

Matthew 16:19

Jesus (Davidic King of Israel/Heaven)
Simon (Steward) – given keys to kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:18 says nothing of keys

 

[Brennin]

Have you read the previous posts in this thread? Yes the steward was stripped of his position. The whole point is that it was a dynastic position. After it was stripped, it needed to be filled, and it was filled. It was filled by the new steward Eliakim via the passing of the key.

Here’s something of an illustration of the parallel:

Isaiah 22:22

Hezekiah (Davidic King of Israel)
Eliakim (Steward) – given key to house of David

Matthew 16:19

Jesus (Davidic King of Israel/Heaven)
Simon (Steward) – given keys to kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:18 says nothing of keys

Your parallel is missing the person the keys were taken from in the first place.

And Matthew 18:18 does not need to mention "keys" because it mentions "binding and loosing," which is what the "keys" are all about.

 

[tblaine74]

Your parallel is missing the person the keys were taken from in the first place.

The parallel has no need of that person, except to demonstrate the nature of the position. If you are only meaning to point out that there was no parallel for Shebna in Matthew 16, I would suggest considering the difference between maintaining a position and establishing one.

And Matthew 18:18 does not need to mention "keys" because it mentions "binding and loosing," which is what the "keys" are all about.

You have dismissed the demonstration of what is meant by the “keys” in order to do what, take hold of better demonstration? Where is it? If I am expected to accept the premise that the “keys” “are all about” binding and loosing, then your demonstration is lacking, as I have already shown that this is not ALL they were about. Even though I should accept your statement, am I then to reason that because the “keys” permit binding and loosing it follows that anyone permitted to bind and loose has the “keys”? That’s just bad logic. Here’s the picture you are painting:

Matthew 16:19 possesses the same components as Isaiah 22:22,

but the meaning of Matthew 16:19 is different.

Matthew 18:18 does not possess the same components as Matthew 16:19,

but the meaning is the same.

No small amount of demonstration is needed here.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Your parallel is missing the person the keys were taken from in the first place.

And Matthew 18:18 does not need to mention "keys" because it mentions "binding and loosing," which is what the "keys" are all about.

The Keys are but a representation of the one that is cosidered supreme of the ministers or prime. All ministers have the power to bind and loose. But only the one with the Key on his shoulder has the power to change what another minister bound or loosed. It is because this person with the Key has a higher authority then the other that he has this symbol of office.

I think for Protestants they teach each other that everyone has the power to bind and loose. This is in error and convulutes the situation because it presents many other errors. In truth the scriptures gave only the Apostles the power to bind and loose and scriptures gave only Peter the Keys. The scriptures even show that the offices the Apostles held are dynastic as we see in Acts 1 when they replace Judas with Matthias. It is then that Matthias takes on the role of a bishop and can bind and loose as well (forgive sins). And we know this because the early church wrote about such things and it enforces what the Catholic Church teaches today.

 

[Brennin]

The Keys are but a representation of the one that is cosidered supreme of the ministers or prime. All ministers have the power to bind and loose. But only the one with the Key on his shoulder has the power to change what another minister bound or loosed. It is because this person with the Key has a higher authority then the other that he has this symbol of office.

That is a fantasy of Roman Catholic invention.

 

[Brennin]

Matthew 16:19 possesses the same components as Isaiah 22:22,

No, that is your argument. The language is reminiscent of Isaiah 22:22 but that is all.

 

[tblaine74]

No, that is your argument. The language is reminiscent of Isaiah 22:22 but that is all.

Isaiah 22:22 (New International Version)

Components:

Position: “I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David”
Action: “what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open”

Matthew 16:19 (New International Version)

Components:

Position: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”
Action: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

Matthew 18:18 (New International Version)

Component:

Action: “whatever you bind on earth will be[a]bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”

Once again:

Matthew 16:19 possesses the same components as Isaiah 22:22

Matthew 18:18 does not possess the same components as Matthew 16:19

This is not an argument. It is an observation. No one is claiming that the wording is identical. I don’t know why anyone would even need or want to suggest that. Simply saying no to all of this doesn’t demonstrate anything.

 

[tblaine74]

That is a fantasy of Roman Catholic invention.

Since we are left to take this on your word, let’s first establish the credibility of your word, based on your previous posts.

“Isaiah 22:22 does not refer to Peter”
“There is a parallel but nothing more”
“Matthew 16:19 was not an accident”

Cheers to anyone who can reconcile those three statements.

“Isaiah 22:22 speaks of a steward who exceeded his authority, so he was stripped of his authority and it was given to another. This is clearly a prophecy concerning the power-mongering papacy, and it shows God's displeasure with the institution and his revocation of its authority!”

For those who will read Isaiah 22:22 and reconcile it with the previous quote, one must deal with God’s clear “displeasure with the institution and his revocation of its authority” in spite of God’s clear maintenance of the institution and the continuance of its authority. Good luck.

“And Matthew 18:18 does not need to mention "keys" because it mentions "binding and loosing," which is what the "keys" are all about.”

This is known as the logical fallacy of “Affirming the Consequent”.

I am not attempting to be cruel. I am attempting to show you the irrationality of that which you seem to expect others to swallow.