Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

Valletta · May 6, 2024

NotUrAvgGuy said:
If Jesus gave "the keys" exclusively to Peter, then why did He give them to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18?

Jesus did not. As I correctly stated, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. As you can see below, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of the Apostles, not the keys to the kingdom.

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[a] RSVCE

NotUrAvgGuy · May 6, 2024

Valletta said:
Jesus did not. As I correctly stated, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. As you can see below, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of the Apostles, not the keys to the kingdom.

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[a] RSVCE

I think it was all part of one thought. How then do you define the keys? What does that mean to you and where do you find that definition in Scripture?

Valletta · May 6, 2024

NotUrAvgGuy said:
I think it was all part of one thought. How then do you define the keys? What does that mean to you and where do you find that definition in Scripture?

If you recall Isaiah, when the position of prime minister (the closest equivalent we have today) was vacated, a new prime minister was chosen. The prime minister was not the king, not even royalty, but when the king was absent the word of the prime minister was like that of the king's word--to be obeyed. The key to the House of David (the kingdom of David) was given to the prime minister as a sign of authority:

Isaiah 22: 19-22 "I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 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. 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." RSVCE

NotUrAvgGuy · May 6, 2024

Valletta said:
If you recall Isaiah, when the position of prime minister (the closest equivalent we have today) was vacated, a new prime minister was chosen. The prime minister was not the king, not even royalty, but when the king was absent the word of the prime minister was like that of the king's word--to be obeyed. The key to the House of David (the kingdom of David) was given to the prime minister as a sign of authority:

Isaiah 22: 19-22 "I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, 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. 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." RSVCE

The account in Isaiah is about a real person who was being elevated in his role due to the failures and attitude of his predecessor. It was a government position as you described. The "key" he was given was nothing new. It was the normal responsibilities that went with that office.

Nothing in this account ties it to Peter and nothing in the Matthew account ties it back to this account except for the mention of keys. If there is a tie to anyone it is to Jesus as seen in Revelation 3:7. It is Jesus who has the key of David, not Peter. Keys can also be used in a non-judicial or administrative sense as I believe is the case in Matthew.

To me (and many others), the understanding of the passage in Matthew is as follows. Peter was the first of the Apostles to understand and confess that Jesus is the Messiah something Jesus credits to God revealing it to him. That profession of faith, and what it implies, is the "key" or basis to becoming a believer. Peter, and the Apostles, disciples, and all of us, have the "key" to opening heaven to unbelievers. That key is the proclamation of the Gospel of which Peter and the other Apostles were the first to use. Peter, due to his great faith, was the first of the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the Jews (on the Day of Pentecost) and the first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles (to Cornelius and his family). While he was first, the other Apostles were soon doing the same as the "key" was given to all. Peter was in many ways the leader of the Apostles but not in any formal way. In the same way we see the "loosening and binding" extended to all the Apostles.

In 1 Peter, Peter introduces himself as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow elder." He does not introduce himself as the head of the church or the highest-ranking Apostle. He says he is a "fellow elder" not putting himself any higher than the men he is writing. I can't imagine any priest or bishop today publicly rebuking the Pope yet Paul did so to Peter when he was being a hypocrite. If Peter was in such an office as you imagine, Paul would certainly not have rebuked him publicly. He might have voiced concern privately but not in front of all to hear. That would show disrespect for Peter's office yet Peter does not charge Paul with disrespect. It was James who was the first bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter. We are not even certain Peter ever went to Rome but even if he did that doesn't mean he was ever the bishop of Rome. I cannot imagine such an important office being created and there is not one mention of it by any of the other books in the NT. Similar to Mary's supposed role. How can such important roles go unmentioned?

There are dozens of references in Scripture to Christ being "the rock." Christ Himself said the church was built on the foundation of the prophets and the Apostles with Himself being the chief cornerstone. He did not declare Peter to be the foundation of the church. Peter warned those he wrote who were in leadership not the lord their authority over others. Yet the Pope is addressed as "Holy Father" and Catholics kneel before him and kiss his ring (some his feet). Cardinals are addressed as "Your Eminence." Bishops as "Your Excellency." Jesus most often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" though He could have rightly referred to Himself with any number of royal titles. We see no instructions in Scripture that the Apostles had to bow before Jesus and kiss His hand or feet. Some no doubt did prostrate themselves before the Lord, but because He is God and worthy of our worship. I will not even address a priest as "father." We are told in Scripture to not call anyone father except God or our earthly father. It is not to be used as a title yet it is what the Catholic church calls their priests. Paul wrote about deacons and elders, never priests. That's because priests were tied to the old sacrificial system which was done away with in Christ (read the book of Hebrews). We don't have priests anymore. I think that title was likely adopted because in so many pagan religions and in the OT you have priests. Some felt it was important to reuse that title to gain respect. When I address my pastor, I call him Steve which is his first name. I don't even say "pastor Steve." I have total respect for him and he does not take my calling him Steve as a slight. Where do you read of Peter or Paul wearing robes when teaching or among the faithful? In the OT, the robes and vestments were all part of the symbology done away with in Christ. We may see such things again in heaven, but they are not needed here on earth.

The "key" Peter and the Apostles were given, was the key to unlock heaven through the Gospel. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for having such a key and failing in their use of it. We have no mention of Peter having a special role in the early church. None of the NT writers, including Peter himself, refer to such a role. The Catholic church is overreaching in trying to use one small passage found in one Gospel (and can certainly be understood in other ways) to teach that Peter was installed in an office of the Pope and there are no instructions given that such an office be passed on to successors. I don't believe Catholics believe in the sign gifts like speaking in tongues. Those gifts were used in the birthing of the church but (I don't believe) as an ongoing gift. Peter might have had a prominent role among the Apostles, and also for the birthing of the church. We now have the Scriptures. They are the foundation of our faith and practice. It was men who invented or reused these other titles not found in Scripture. It was men who reinstituted a sacrificial "mass" when Jesus was the once and for-all sacrifice. Heaven is depicted as having twelve stones representing the twelve Apostles. No one stone is higher than the others or given more prestige. Peter was not the first Pope and there is no office of pope in the Bible. He was a godly man, with faults, but whom we can all relate to. He was a humble man who did not dress differently or was addressed by a title and no one had to kneel and kiss anything on him. These are pomp and ceremony added by men when we see nothing like it in the NT. A lot changed with Constantine. Suddenly the bishop of Rome wanted to act like an empower with titles and armies and getting involved in politics. Hardly like the Lord or Peter.

Valletta · May 7, 2024

NotUrAvgGuy said:
The account in Isaiah is about a real person who was being elevated in his role due to the failures and attitude of his predecessor. It was a government position as you described. The "key" he was given was nothing new. It was the normal responsibilities that went with that office.

Nothing in this account ties it to Peter and nothing in the Matthew account ties it back to this account except for the mention of keys.

False. Jews of the day, Jews who knew Holy Scripture, would certainly have recognized the words of Jesus as paralleling Isaiah 22. Are you trying to set a record as to how many old and refuted anti-Catholic criticisms you can make in one post? I am always open to a serious discussion but please one item at a time.

NotUrAvgGuy · May 7, 2024

Valletta said:
False. Jews of the day, Jews who knew Holy Scripture, would certainly have recognized the words of Jesus as paralleling Isaiah 22. Are you trying to set a record as to how many old and refuted anti-Catholic criticisms you can make in one post? I am always open to a serious discussion but please one item at a time.

The account in Isaiah 22 is a prophecy concerning a change of office holders. A corrupt and prideful man will be replaced by a godly man named Eliakim. He is told he will have the "key of the house of David" layed on his shoulder. "So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open."

In the Matthew account, Jesus says he will "give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Take note of Isaiah 22:22, as Christ quotes it in the letter to the church at Philadelphia: “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.” Eliakim's authority to “open . . . and shut” results from “the key of the house of David” being put “on his shoulder.” We can compare this with Isaiah 9:6-7, another Messianic prophecy:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Emphasis ours throughout.)
The key of the house of David, then, represents God's governance, specifically His governance over Israel. The Bible even names the royal throne—the throne on which David and Solomon sat—as “the throne of the LORD” (I Chronicles 29:23; see II Chronicles 9:8)! God has sworn that David would always have an heir to sit on that throne (Jeremiah 33:17).
Thus, the key on Eliakim's shoulder represents the power of the government that would ultimately rest on the Messiah's shoulder. It involves the royal line of David and all the authority that resulted from God's covenant and promises to him. The Messiah would come from that same line, and He will sit on that throne when He returns and establishes His Kingdom (Isaiah 9:7).
In his position as second-in-command, Eliakim served as the ultimate gatekeeper, granting or denying access to the house of David at his discretion. He could open the door, and no one could shut it. Having the door opened meant access to the king's presence, and thus to the God-given authority and blessings of the royal line, as well as to all the resources of the treasury and storehouse. But if the steward shut the door, he blocked all of that access, and no one could overrule his decision.
It was a significant position. It is no wonder that God would not tolerate the likes of Shebna in it, who was more interested in his legacy and earthly pomp than fulfilling his office with gravity and faithfulness.

David C. Grabbe
The 'Open Door' of Philadelphia

Eliakim's office was a foreshadowing of Christ's office as the Messiah. In Revelation 3, the key of David is seen as being Christ's:

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.
8 “ ‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut.

It is the Lord who is opening and shutting doors with the key of David. Not Peter. The question in the Matthew passage is what does that key represent? Keys can open many things. Just because Eliakim was in an office like a prime minister does not establish that any reference to a key must relate to that type of office. The clear tie is between Isaiah and Revelation where Eliakim is a sort of prefigure of the Messiah. Jesus told the Apostles (not just Peter) that they had the power to loosen and bind which is different than opening and shutting though both represent authority. In context, Peter is being given a key to opening and shutting heaven by the proclamation of the Gospel. There is no indication he is being given broader powers that apply only to him. Such an understanding would require additional Scriptural support. As pointed out previously, we have not a single additional verse confirming Peter had such powers. He is never depicted as being the head of the early church. No other NT writer describes him as having such authority. Catholics are building an entire theology around one word that lacks additional description and support. It lacks support in the NT.

Valletta · May 7, 2024

NotUrAvgGuy said:
The account in Isaiah 22 is a prophecy concerning a change of office holders. A corrupt and prideful man will be replaced by a godly man named Eliakim. He is told he will have the "key of the house of David" layed on his shoulder. "So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open."

In the Matthew account, Jesus says he will "give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Take note of Isaiah 22:22, as Christ quotes it in the letter to the church at Philadelphia: “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; so he shall open, and no one shall shut; and he shall shut, and no one shall open.” Eliakim's authority to “open . . . and shut” results from “the key of the house of David” being put “on his shoulder.” We can compare this with Isaiah 9:6-7, another Messianic prophecy:
For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Emphasis ours throughout.)
The key of the house of David, then, represents God's governance, specifically His governance over Israel. The Bible even names the royal throne—the throne on which David and Solomon sat—as “the throne of the LORD” (I Chronicles 29:23; see II Chronicles 9:8)! God has sworn that David would always have an heir to sit on that throne (Jeremiah 33:17).
Thus, the key on Eliakim's shoulder represents the power of the government that would ultimately rest on the Messiah's shoulder. It involves the royal line of David and all the authority that resulted from God's covenant and promises to him. The Messiah would come from that same line, and He will sit on that throne when He returns and establishes His Kingdom (Isaiah 9:7).
In his position as second-in-command, Eliakim served as the ultimate gatekeeper, granting or denying access to the house of David at his discretion. He could open the door, and no one could shut it. Having the door opened meant access to the king's presence, and thus to the God-given authority and blessings of the royal line, as well as to all the resources of the treasury and storehouse. But if the steward shut the door, he blocked all of that access, and no one could overrule his decision.
It was a significant position. It is no wonder that God would not tolerate the likes of Shebna in it, who was more interested in his legacy and earthly pomp than fulfilling his office with gravity and faithfulness.

David C. Grabbe
The 'Open Door' of Philadelphia

Eliakim's office was a foreshadowing of Christ's office as the Messiah. In Revelation 3, the key of David is seen as being Christ's:

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.
8 “ ‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut.

It is the Lord who is opening and shutting doors with the key of David. Not Peter. The question in the Matthew passage is what does that key represent? Keys can open many things. Just because Eliakim was in an office like a prime minister does not establish that any reference to a key must relate to that type of office. The clear tie is between Isaiah and Revelation where Eliakim is a sort of prefigure of the Messiah. Jesus told the Apostles (not just Peter) that they had the power to loosen and bind which is different than opening and shutting though both represent authority. In context, Peter is being given a key to opening and shutting heaven by the proclamation of the Gospel. C. Such an understanding would require additional Scriptural support. As pointed out previously, we have not a single additional verse confirming Peter had such powers. He is never depicted as being the head of the early church. No other NT writer describes him as having such authority. Catholics are building an entire theology around one word that lacks additional description and support. It lacks support in the NT.

The parallel of words gives the correlation to the key of the House of David, not some other keys. Jews of the day knew their Holy Scripture. The key of the House of David spoken of is the key given by the king to his prime minister to have authority when the king is gone. Someone had to handle the regular duties of the kingdom when the king was not present. The prime minister is not a king, not even royalty. But he is given a special job, in Isaiah it states to be a father to the people. It was Peter alone, not any of the other Apostles, who was given the special authority:

Isaiah 22: 21-22 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. RSVCE

Revelation 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens RSVCE

Never depicted being the head of the earthly Church? Jesus changed his name from Simon to Rock, and Rock was often used to refer to God. In John 20 we see John deferring to Peter to enter the tomb. There are a number of times where Peter speaks for the Apostles. Or where the Bible refers to Peter and the rest of the Apostles. And there is more:

Jesus and Peter

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.[a] RSVCE

NotUrAvgGuy · May 7, 2024

Valletta said:
The parallel of words gives the correlation to the key of the House of David, not some other keys. Jews of the day knew their Holy Scripture. The key of the House of David spoken of is the key given by the king to his prime minister to have authority when the king is gone. Someone had to handle the regular duties of the kingdom when the king was not present. The prime minister is not a king, not even royalty. But he is given a special job, in Isaiah it states to be a father to the people. It was Peter alone, not any of the other Apostles, who was given the special authority:

Isaiah 22: 21-22 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. RSVCE

Revelation 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens RSVCE

Never depicted being the head of the earthly Church? Jesus changed his name from Simon to Rock, and Rock was often used to refer to God. In John 20 we see John deferring to Peter to enter the tomb. There are a number of times where Peter speaks for the Apostles. Or where the Bible refers to Peter and the rest of the Apostles. And there is more:

Jesus and Peter
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.[a] RSVCE

Again, the clear parallel is between Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3. Both refer to the Messiah, not Peter. What the Jewish readers might have understood, is not important. Jesus made that statement to the Apostles. No other Jews were around. There would be Jewish readers later but there would also be Gentile readers who might not be familiar with the Isaiah passage. I keep pointing it out, but you never comment, that the rest of the NT says nothing about Peter being given such authority.

Peter was a leader. He was the leader of the Apostles. However, that leadership is not what is depicted by the Catholic church. Neither are we told that Jesus was setting up an office that would pass from Peter to others. The Apostles were a unique group in history as evidenced by their 12 thrones in heaven. Other than the Apostle Paul, there were no other Apostles. The office of Apostle ended with the death of John. By the time Peter died, there was no further need of a leader of the Apostles. The church was established and growing. It needed no central leader. It was led by the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Apostles as found in Scripture.

You are confusing Peter's leadership role among the Apostles with the earthly office of Pope. You are trying to build a whole case around that office from a simple reference to keys which are really a prophecy about Christ. Yes, Jesus changed his name, but Jesus sometimes called him Peter (which means "rock") and sometimes called him Simon. John called him Simon Peter. When you look at Jesus' choice of names for Peter, he used the name Simon when Peter was acting like his old self. It was a subtle way of Jesus pointing out to him that he was not acting like Peter the rock. Like all of us, Peter vacillated. He had moments of great faith and moments of great failure. When Jesus speaks to him in the passage you cite above, He calls him Simon. Peter had stumbled. Jesus was restoring him but in doing so did not call him "rock" but used his old name. Peter had not been a "rock" when he denied three times he knew the Lord.

The fact that John stopped and allowed Peter to enter the tomb first, is hardly evidence for an office like Pope. They were best friends from youth. John loved Peter and might naturally defer to him. Even if he deferred out of respect, it might have had no more to do than Peter being a leader of the Apostles but not in an ongoing office like Pope.

I cannot imagine Peter expecting others to kneel before him and kiss a ring on his finger. I cannot imagine Peter dressing in vestments. I cannot imagine Peter expecting others to address him by a title. Peter was a blue-collar kind of guy. Salt of the earth. He considered himself "one of the guys." The Catholic church treats the Pope like he is some kind or prince of king. We don't see Peter being treated that way. What bishop or cardinal would rebuke the pope in public like Paul rebuked Peter? Far more of the NT is written by Paul than Peter. Paul is the most prominent figure in the NT save Jesus. Yet Paul too was "one of the guys." He was humble as they all were. No one was above the others.

Valletta · May 7, 2024

NotUrAvgGuy said:
Again, the clear parallel is between Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3. Both refer to the Messiah, not Peter. What the Jewish readers might have understood, is not important. Jesus made that statement to the Apostles. No other Jews were around. There would be Jewish readers later but there would also be Gentile readers who might not be familiar with the Isaiah passage. I keep pointing it out, but you never comment, that the rest of the NT says nothing about Peter being given such authority.

Peter was a leader. He was the leader of the Apostles. However, that leadership is not what is depicted by the Catholic church. Neither are we told that Jesus was setting up an office that would pass from Peter to others. The Apostles were a unique group in history as evidenced by their 12 thrones in heaven. Other than the Apostle Paul, there were no other Apostles. The office of Apostle ended with the death of John. By the time Peter died, there was no further need of a leader of the Apostles. The church was established and growing. It needed no central leader. It was led by the Holy Spirit and the teaching of the Apostles as found in Scripture.

You are confusing Peter's leadership role among the Apostles with the earthly office of Pope. You are trying to build a whole case around that office from a simple reference to keys which are really a prophecy about Christ. Yes, Jesus changed his name, but Jesus sometimes called him Peter (which means "rock") and sometimes called him Simon. John called him Simon Peter. When you look at Jesus' choice of names for Peter, he used the name Simon when Peter was acting like his old self. It was a subtle way of Jesus pointing out to him that he was not acting like Peter the rock. Like all of us, Peter vacillated. He had moments of great faith and moments of great failure. When Jesus speaks to him in the passage you cite above, He calls him Simon. Peter had stumbled. Jesus was restoring him but in doing so did not call him "rock" but used his old name. Peter had not been a "rock" when he denied three times he knew the Lord.

The fact that John stopped and allowed Peter to enter the tomb first, is hardly evidence for an office like Pope. They were best friends from youth. John loved Peter and might naturally defer to him. Even if he deferred out of respect, it might have had no more to do than Peter being a leader of the Apostles but not in an ongoing office like Pope.

I cannot imagine Peter expecting others to kneel before him and kiss a ring on his finger. I cannot imagine Peter dressing in vestments. I cannot imagine Peter expecting others to address him by a title. Peter was a blue-collar kind of guy. Salt of the earth. He considered himself "one of the guys." The Catholic church treats the Pope like he is some kind or prince of king. We don't see Peter being treated that way. What bishop or cardinal would rebuke the pope in public like Paul rebuked Peter? Far more of the NT is written by Paul than Peter. Paul is the most prominent figure in the NT save Jesus. Yet Paul too was "one of the guys." He was humble as they all were. No one was above the others.

Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews, and the first followers of Jesus were Jews. The important point was these were people who knew the Old Testament. Later on the Gentiles would also learn the Old Testament. Jesus was a king in the Davidic kingdom, Peter was not. The keys to the kingdom were given By Jesus TO Peter. The keys to the kingdom were given By the king TO the prime minister in Isaiah. Please try and not judge others by the clothes they wear. Catholics and our brothers and sisters in the East are particularly respectful when encountering Jesus in His Real Presence. If you choose not to wear a wedding garment to the wedding you have free will not to do so. Once the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire stopped Christians spent ten to twenty years before they started building churches. Churches are houses for God, and thus the decision was made to make the inside quite elaborate. There is a lot of symbolism inside of churches and in the clothing worn by priests and bishops that can be important for instruction of the laity. The miter worn by bishops, for example, has two parts that represent the divine and human nature of Jesus. The two bands on the miter represent the Old and New Testaments. Items like incense represent prayer, as per Revelation.

NotUrAvgGuy · May 8, 2024

Valletta said:
Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews, and the first followers of Jesus were Jews. The important point was these were people who knew the Old Testament. Later on the Gentiles would also learn the Old Testament. Jesus was a king in the Davidic kingdom, Peter was not. The keys to the kingdom were given By Jesus TO Peter. The keys to the kingdom were given By the king TO the prime minister in Isaiah. Please try and not judge others by the clothes they wear. Catholics and our brothers and sisters in the East are particularly respectful when encountering Jesus in His Real Presence. If you choose not to wear a wedding garment to the wedding you have free will not to do so. Once the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire stopped Christians spent ten to twenty years before they started building churches. Churches are houses for God, and thus the decision was made to make the inside quite elaborate. There is a lot of symbolism inside of churches and in the clothing worn by priests and bishops that can be important for instruction of the laity. The miter worn by bishops, for example, has two parts that represent the divine and human nature of Jesus. The two bands on the miter represent the Old and New Testaments. Items like incense represent prayer, as per Revelation.

As I have stated before, if Peter was made the "prime minister of God's kingdom on earth":

Why do we see no further reference to that in all of the NT? None in Paul's writings, none in Peter's writings, none in John's writings...
When Paul plants churches, why does he leave no instructions to them to submit to Peter and why does Paul not even mention Peter in any authoritative capacity?
Why no priesthood or mass in the entire NT? We have no description of anything resembling the mass in the NT. Paul established churches led by a plurality of elders aided by deacons. Why don't Catholic churches operate this way? You love to mention how the mass is modeled after the Book of Revelation yet you ignore Paul's clear example of church leadership which includes married men. It seems the Catholic mass bears little resemblance to anything described in the Book of Acts.
Why does Mark's gospel (sourced from Peter) not mention the giving of the keys to Peter? Why does Peter make no mention of it in his epistles?
Why is there no teaching that the office held by Peter should be continued after his death?

I find it interesting that you mention that outward trappings like elaborate church interiors and special clothing were important for the instruction of the laity. As I can attest as someone who grew up Catholic, you certainly don't get in-depth Biblical teaching so I suppose you have to learn by these things. The bishop's miter might have two parts but I was never told about that as a Catholic and if it is properly taught then having it on a miter is not important. I probably saw a bishop's miter once in 24 years as a Catholic. I was never taught that incense represented prayer and hated the smell of it when it was used. It seemed like unnecessary pomp and show at the time. Why the adoption of titles for priests, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope when we have no such examples in Scripture? Why must a Catholic kiss the Pope's ring when no such signs of honor or submission were ever described in the NT?

These are all manmade traditions that we don't see in the early church. There is nothing wrong with wearing robes or using incense though I do object to fancy titles and practices like kissing rings. If you want to spend money on elaborate churches be my guest. I would rather have rich, in-depth teaching than stained glass windows and other symbology. What we see in Revelation is a picture of heaven but not necessarily a pattern for worship on earth. The Catholic church seems focused on their liturgy and outward symbolism more on the plain teaching of God's Word. What a shame.

Hank77 · May 8, 2024

NotUrAvgGuy said:
I cannot imagine Peter expecting others to kneel before him and kiss a ring on his finger.

Acts 10
25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

NotUrAvgGuy · May 8, 2024

Hank77 said:
Acts 10
25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”

Exactly! Peter made him get up. I don't see the Pope refusing to let people kneel before him and kiss his ring...

Valletta · May 8, 2024

NotUrAvgGuy said:
As I have stated before, if Peter was made the "prime minister of God's kingdom on earth":

Why do we see no further reference to that in all of the NT? None in Paul's writings, none in Peter's writings, none in John's writings...

When Paul plants churches, why does he leave no instructions to them to submit to Peter and why does Paul not even mention Peter in any authoritative capacity?

Why no priesthood or mass in the entire NT? We have no description of anything resembling the mass in the NT. Paul established churches led by a plurality of elders aided by deacons. Why don't Catholic churches operate this way? You love to mention how the mass is modeled after the Book of Revelation yet you ignore Paul's clear example of church leadership which includes married men. It seems the Catholic mass bears little resemblance to anything described in the Book of Acts.

Why does Mark's gospel (sourced from Peter) not mention the giving of the keys to Peter? Why does Peter make no mention of it in his epistles?

Why is there no teaching that the office held by Peter should be continued after his death?

I find it interesting that you mention that outward trappings like elaborate church interiors and special clothing were important for the instruction of the laity. As I can attest as someone who grew up Catholic, you certainly don't get in-depth Biblical teaching so I suppose you have to learn by these things. The bishop's miter might have two parts but I was never told about that as a Catholic and if it is properly taught then having it on a miter is not important. I probably saw a bishop's miter once in 24 years as a Catholic. I was never taught that incense represented prayer and hated the smell of it when it was used. It seemed like unnecessary pomp and show at the time. Why the adoption of titles for priests, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope when we have no such examples in Scripture? Why must a Catholic kiss the Pope's ring when no such signs of honor or submission were ever described in the NT?

These are all manmade traditions that we don't see in the early church. There is nothing wrong with wearing robes or using incense though I do object to fancy titles and practices like kissing rings. If you want to spend money on elaborate churches be my guest. I would rather have rich, in-depth teaching than stained glass windows and other symbology. What we see in Revelation is a picture of heaven but not necessarily a pattern for worship on earth. The Catholic church seems focused on their liturgy and outward symbolism more on the plain teaching of God's Word. What a shame.

The Catholic Church is focused on Jesus and a deep and intimate relationship with Him. The reading of words from the Bible can be a wonderful start toward this intimate relationship and is strongly encouraged.
There are many references to Peter in the Bible representing him as being first. A pope is a servant, his position is there in case a final decision needs to be made. That does not necessarily mean Peter was a better person than any of the other Apostles. Popes can go to Heaven or hell. Many Catholics were not taught much of the faith or had a good prayer life so the culture which first became prominent in the 1960s swept us away. The Last Supper was the first mass, later the Bible refers to the mass as the "breaking of the bread." The word "priest" comes from "presbyter." We translate Episcopos as "bishop."
Don't confuse customs and regular traditions with Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God. A tradition of the early Catholic Church was to have mass in catacombs and secret rooms. Catholics built large church buildings in the mid-300s and gathered in those buildings--that is a man-made tradition of Protestants and Catholics of today that was not a tradition of the early Church. Another man-made tradition of Protestants is their canon of the Bible--taking the 73 books the Catholics chose, dropping seven books, but retaining the same order of books chosen by the Catholic Church in the late 300s. As I've said before, much of the Catholic mass is right out of Revelation. Many Protestants have dropped some or all of those traditions, such as the liturgical garments, the procession, the reverence for the altar, the incense, and the music and singing.

NotUrAvgGuy · May 8, 2024

Valletta said:
The Catholic Church is focused on Jesus and a deep and intimate relationship with Him. The reading of words from the Bible can be a wonderful start toward this intimate relationship and is strongly encouraged.
There are many references to Peter in the Bible representing him as being first. A pope is a servant, his position is there in case a final decision needs to be made. That does not necessarily mean Peter was a better person than any of the other Apostles. Popes can go to Heaven or hell. Many Catholics were not taught much of the faith or had a good prayer life so the culture which first became prominent in the 1960s swept us away. The Last Supper was the first mass, later the Bible refers to the mass as the "breaking of the bread." The word "priest" comes from "presbyter." We translate Episcopos as "bishop."
Don't confuse customs and regular traditions with Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God. A tradition of the early Catholic Church was to have mass in catacombs and secret rooms. Catholics built large church buildings in the mid-300s and gathered in those buildings--that is a man-made tradition of Protestants and Catholics of today that was not a tradition of the early Church. Another man-made tradition of Protestants is their canon of the Bible--taking the 73 books the Catholics chose, dropping seven books, but retaining the same order of books chosen by the Catholic Church in the late 300s. As I've said before, much of the Catholic mass is right out of Revelation. Many Protestants have dropped some or all of those traditions, such as the liturgical garments, the procession, the reverence for the altar, the incense, and the music and singing.

The Last Supper was a celebration of the Jewish Passover. It was not a service nor was there any sacrifice taking place. Jesus alluded to His upcoming sacrifice but no sacrifice took place during the Last Supper. It was not a worship service either. To say it was the "first mass" is a big stretch. If you want to say parts of the mass were modeled after it you can but I certainly don't see it as the "first mass."

The word "priest" does come from the word "presbyter" but the role of the priest resembles nothing Paul taught about or that we see in the NT. Presbyters, or elders (sometimes translated ministers) were men of the church chosen for their godliness, knowledge, and wisdom who could be married. There were always multiple elders who ruled jointly. There are many Catholic parishes that have just one priest and not a group as Paul instructed. It was a group of elders, not a lone elder reporting to someone somewhere else.

The term elder is also sometimes translated as "episcopal", "overseer", or "pastor." These are all synonyms. A bishop is no different than an elder. In time, as some churches grew and had many elders, the foremost elder was sometimes called the bishop over that church or city but in Paul's usage a bishop was no different than an elder.

As I have written before, there was no Catholic church when the canon of Scripture was decided. It was a gathering of elders from different cities some called bishops. The Catholic church as we know it did not yet exist. It was not the Catholic church that gave us the canon but the early Christian church. The order of the books does not matter particularly in the NT. I would place the Gospels before Acts, and the epistles after Acts but otherwise the order is arbitrary. We could attempt to arrange the letters based on when they were written but that would involve imprecise dates and a different order than we are used to. The Apocryphal books were removed because they were never accepted by the Jews as part of the OT and contained theological and factual errors. They never appeared in the Hebrew OT.

I would not call the Catholic tradition "sacred tradition." It is just the traditions of man and not on par with Scripture. There is nothing sacred about them and churches are free to drop them if they wish.

BobRyan · May 11, 2024

Frank Sophia said:
She has provided his humanity.

humanity comes into existence as a result of two haploid gametes joining to create one diploid human cell. Mary provided one of the haploid cells.

BobRyan · May 11, 2024

BobRyan said:
The same church that called for the "extermination of heretics" in LATERAN IV and calls for "communion with the dead" in its Catechism statement #958 Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 958 -- also claims Mary was sinless like Christ and was in fact born sinless.

But not everyone is a member of that one denomination - so not every agrees to those teachings -- EVEN though long BEFORE all of that - we all had the book of Matthew.

concretecamper said:
I bet you get all your news from CNN

Since you are not challenging any fact I listed above -- it seems that your claim is that in your view only CNN is giving the straight facts.

BobRyan · May 11, 2024

BobRyan said:
that is not how incarnation works. But it is key to procreation.

there is a difference

who gave Adam his humanity? the dust??

You are glossing over the difference between incarnation and procreation.

Frank Sophia said:
Adam was not born by any womb...

agreed - the diploid human cells that Adam had were created from scratch. The Bible says -- from the dirt not from any previous primate.

Frank Sophia said:
You are not noticing that the Word and the flesh are different things.

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us" no reference to Mary at all in that John 1 statement.
John 6 -- "I AM the living bread that CAME down out of heaven" John 6 - Mary was not in the business of bread in heaven.
Pre-existent as infinite God - lacking nothing - that then is supernaturally "incarnated" as Jesus the Christ "Son of Man". Fully God full man.

Frank Sophia said:
The Word is co-eternal with the Father

Yep - lacking in nothing. Just like the Holy Spirit.

Frank Sophia said:
, but the human called Jesus was birthed immaculately.

The Catholic Church teaches the "immaculate conception" - a reference to the birth of Mary by HER mother.

Frank Sophia said:
The Spirit has provided his Divinity while Mary provides the humanity.

Humans come about because of two haploid gamete cells that join to become one diploid human cell. Mary provided ONE of the haploid cells for that to happen.

Frank Sophia said:
People don't like putting them together, or noticing they are fully together.

agreed.

BobRyan · May 11, 2024

BobRyan said:
"Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us."

Divide said:
That sounds incorrect to me. Mary didn't have the Adamic nature

"all have sinned" Rom 3:23 so then Mary refers to Jesus as "My Savior" Luke 1:47

Divide said:
she was purified and prepared to bring forth holiness before she conceived.

No scripture says any such thing.

BobRyan · May 11, 2024

concretecamper said:
@BobRyan

Instead of responding to all your posts, maybe you would like to prove to us all the Matthew is inspired text.

Because you prefer that topic instead of this one??

Surely you accept Genesis as an inspired text? Do you want a thread on "What is scripture"

Luke 24 says "beginning with Moses and all the prophets HE explained the things concerning Himself in ALL THE SCRIPTURES". This tells us that Luke's readers had the concept of "in all the scriptures" long before there was any Catholic council that would come about centuries later. You agree here as well right?

In any case - sounds like an interesting thread - do you want to start that topic?

BobRyan · May 11, 2024

BBAS 64 said:
Good day, Bob

In the same way I do not ask members of the Roman Catholic Church to prove objectively their own churches teaching.

I do not expect that they are able to prove some of theirs beliefs from Scripture.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.

Consider:

Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

Sort of like garbage in garbage out....

agreed - they don't get their doctrine from scripture in certain cases -- and cannot sustain it with a sola scrptura appeal to the text.

But reflect on Mark 7:7-12 where Jesus slam hammers the supposedly infallible traditions of the one true Nation Church (started by God at Sinai) - of his day .. and He does it "sola scriptura" showing how the text of scripture and the supposedly infallible tradition of his day were in disagreement.

"teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.."

7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

That is a pretty strong warning.

Mary was a good person and had a sinful nature like all of us.

Well-Known Member

Jesus did not. As I correctly stated, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. As you can see below, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of the Apostles, not the keys to the kingdom.​

Well-Known Member

Jesus did not. As I correctly stated, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. As you can see below, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of the Apostles, not the keys to the kingdom.​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus and Peter​

Well-Known Member

Jesus and Peter​

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Similar threads

Jesus did not. As I correctly stated, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. As you can see below, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of the Apostles, not the keys to the kingdom.

Jesus did not. As I correctly stated, Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter and not to any other Apostle. As you can see below, Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to all of the Apostles, not the keys to the kingdom.

Jesus and Peter

Jesus and Peter