John 17.20-23

[Jude]

(John 17:20-23 NIV) "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, {21} that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. {22} I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: {23} I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Since 1054, the Church has been divided. It is not 'one'. Out witness is divided, confusing, and necessarily diminished. The 'Kingdom' is divided, as it was in the days following David's reign. Why has the Lord allowed this division to continue? Do you believe that the Church will be re-unified before the 2nd Coming of Christ? Are there signs of this re-unification today? What will be necessary for Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants to do before this can occur? Do all of these groups need to repent, or, as Carson might suggest, is it only all the rest who need to repent and "return to the fold"?

 

[Yelsew]

Carson does not hold the key!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Carson does not hold the key!

And neither do you, Yelsew!

And me neither!

Once there was one church, one communion, one confession, one "fold and one shepherd."

Now there are many.

Is God the God of confusion?

How do we reverse the tendency?

I can only lamely plead to the Holy Spirit for guidance...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[Yelsew]

You are right Wputnam, I simply pointed out that Carson being the outspoken authority of the Catholic faith who is always attempting to claim the Keys to the kingdom of God, does not hold the keys.

You are right to say that neither of us hold them either. However our minds and spirits do not have to remain locked to the kingdom, for we all have the keys which are contained in the Holy Scriptures.

The keys are not contained in the "traditions" of any organization. Nor are the keys secretly kept by any particular human authorities. Once Gutenburg came on the scene, and printed the Holy Scriptures, the Keys became available to all who could and would read those Scriptures. It's really hard to put an escaped cat back in a bag!

So God, in bringing the Holy Scriptures to print through his servant Gutenburg, broke the Roman church's hold on the Keys. And Rome don't like it! Well, you can either get with the program, or suffer from being smothered by your own stifling tradition!

I really like the freedom the Truth has brought to me!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
You are right Wputnam, I simply pointed out that Carson being the outspoken authority of the Catholic faith who is always attempting to claim the Keys to the kingdom of God, does not hold the keys.

"Outspoken" is an interesting term, harking to something I have been suspecting, but I will let it go.

Carson is getting a good education in theology, church history and the Catholic Church in general. He is also a good source for corrections to the misconceptions we hear all the time about the Catholic Church.

You are right to say that neither of us hold them either. However our minds and spirits do not have to remain locked to the kingdom, for we all have the keys which are contained in the Holy Scriptures.

We all have the keys? I noticed Christ gave them to Peter only.

The keys are not contained in the "traditions" of any organization. Nor are the keys secretly kept by any particular human authorities. Once Gutenburg came on the scene, and printed the Holy Scriptures, the Keys became available to all who could and would read those Scriptures. It's really hard to put an escaped cat back in a bag!

Well, gee, I thought all this time Christ established an "organization" called The Church.

I wonder how it is that the sudden availability of scriptures makes good scripture scholars anyway. I certainly am not one, but I do the best I can under the Magisterium of Holy Church.

So please explain to me how it is we all have the "keys" other then the authority of the keys trickle down to us through the hierarchy of the Church. That does not give me any authority, but it does give me assurrence that I can listen to the authority of the Church with confidence, just like Christ intended it.

[aqb]So God, in bringing the Holy Scriptures to print through his servant Gutenburg, broke the Roman church's hold on the Keys. And Rome don't like it! Well, you can either get with the program, or suffer from being smothered by your own stifling tradition![/qb]

HOGWASH! The WORD was given ORALLY to the apostles, that it will be handed-down to us ORALLY as well. Ther in not one whit of a command from Jesus to write a thing down while he was with the apostles in the flesh on this earth!

Now, I will agree that it was the providence of God that the New Testament be written, that it be gathered together, collated, and declared divinely inspired by the (gulp!) same Church Christ established - It existed BEFORE the New Testament was written, sir!

I really like the freedom the Truth has brought to me!

Well, good for you!

I feel I received the truth back in 1952 when I first entered Holy Mother Church as a convert!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

[Yelsew]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You are right to say that neither of us hold them either. However our minds and spirits do not have to remain locked to the kingdom, for we all have the keys which are contained in the Holy Scriptures.We all have the keys?

I noticed Christ gave them to Peter only.</font>[/QUOTE]Where does it say that Jesus gave the keys only to Peter? Jesus was addressing all of the Apostles in their little meeting.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The keys are not contained in the "traditions" of any organization. Nor are the keys secretly kept by any particular human authorities. Once Gutenburg came on the scene, and printed the Holy Scriptures, the Keys became available to all who could and would read those Scriptures. It's really hard to put an escaped cat back in a bag!

Well, gee, I thought all this time Christ established an "organization" called The Church.</font>[/QUOTE]Christ established His church among men, Men established the organization that is called the Roman Catholic church. Men also established the Byzantine Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox Church and all other Church organizations.

I wonder how it is that the sudden availability of scriptures makes good scripture scholars anyway. I certainly am not one, but I do the best I can under the Magisterium of Holy Church.

Faith cometh by hearing, and Hearing by the WORD of God! The Holy Scriptures are called by the Roman Catholic church the Word of God, which is the source of faith!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So please explain to me how it is we all have the "keys" other then the authority of the keys trickle down to us through the hierarchy of the Church. That does not give me any authority, but it does give me assurrence that I can listen to the authority of the Church with confidence, just like Christ intended it. [Smile]

From my post on another topic,

Scripture does not tell us that the Keys are the Scriptures.

At the time the keys were given there was only the Old Testament Scripture in existance, and of course they did not tell us much about Jesus and his band of twelve, or the Church that Jesus would build upon the truth of who and what he is, and the faith of those who believe in him. The New Testament is where the Kingdom of God is explained. An explanation of anything is the "key" to its understanding. </font>[/QUOTE]Unless you are sola scriptura, which I am convinced you are not because you believe the traditions of the Roman church, then you should be able to accept some truth that is not contained in Scripture, but which your church's tradition holds to be the truth.

 

[Carson Weber]

Since 1054, the Church has been divided.

There have been numerous divisions before 1054.. 1054 is just the most poignant and striking.

It is not 'one'.

The oneness of Christ's Church is not diminished when individual Christians or whole communions depart from the Apostolic See of Rome.

Why has the Lord allowed this division to continue?

There has been division from the Get-go.. Christ's Church has never been divided - Christians have been separated from Christ's Church. It isn't as if at one point in time later down the road (i.e., 1054), the first visible division occurred. That's just a larger one. The first ones began with those Jews who required Gentiles to obey Torah and those Jewish Christians who denied the divinity of Christ.

Do you believe that the Church will be re-unified before the 2nd Coming of Christ?

I would answer the question, "Do you believe all Christians will come into full communion with the Church of Christ before Christ returns?" My answer is no, but this is not to say that we should cease all ecumenical efforts. The impossible standard has been set, and we are to strive to attain it.

Are there signs of this re-unification today? What will be necessary for Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and Protestants to do before this can occur?

In Ut Unum Sint, John Paul II has outlined these necessary conditions:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Do all of these groups need to repent, or, as Carson might suggest, is it only all the rest who need to repent and "return to the fold"?

That is not my suggestion. My suggestion is that all need to repent, including Catholics. However, unity cannot be had at the expense of truth: the truth that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, and that any Christian who is a member of the Body of Christ and is not a visible member of the Catholic Church is so only in view of their invisible, impartial communion with that Church of Christ, which subsists only in the visible Catholic Church.

 

[Carson Weber]

Where does it say that Jesus gave the keys only to Peter?

Yelsew, look at Mt 16:16-19. Jesus gives the keys only to Peter. This is indicative of the establishment of the office of Prime Minister of the Kingdom. Compare this with Is 22:20-22.

And look at

http://carson.boerne.com/catholic/kingdom_ecclesiology.html

 

[WPutnam]

Yelsew replied, where I last said:

I noticed Christ gave them to Peter only.

Where does it say that Jesus gave the keys only to Peter? Jesus was addressing all of the Apostles in their little meeting.

Excuse me but starting from Matthew 16:18, there is only one person Jesus is speaking to - Simon, whose name is changed to PETER ("ROCK") And Jesus continues to speak to Peter ONLY into verse 19, where He not only gives Peter and him alone, the "keys of the kingdom." And then to reound it off, He even goes on to give him the power to "bind and loose," again to Peter only.

Later, in Matthew 18:18 Jesus gives the power to bind and loose to all of the apostles, but to Peter alone does He give the keys.

You previously said:

The keys are not contained in he "traditions" of any organization. Nor are the keys secretly kept by any particular human authorities. Once Gutenburg came on the scene, and printed the Holy Scriptures, the Keys became available to all who could and would read those Scriptures. It's really hard to put an escaped cat back in a bag!

Well, gee, I thought all this time Christ established an "organization" called The Church.

And your lastest reply is:

Christ established His church among men, Men established the organization that is called the Roman Catholic church. Men also established the Byzantine Catholic church, the Greek Orthodox Church and all other Church organizations.

Indeed, if it were not for men, especially the 12 men He choose, there would be no church! And indeed it is an organization simply because it was given authority. And are you going to raise that same rediculous claim that because the church somewhere along the line got to be called "Catholic" somehow invalidates that Church?

I previously said:

I wonder how it is that the sudden availability of scriptures makes good scripture scholars anyway. I certainly am not one, but I do the best I can under the Magisterium of Holy Church.

Faith cometh by hearing, and Hearing by the WORD of God! The Holy Scriptures are called by the Roman Catholic church the Word of God, which is the source of faith!

Yes, the Catholic Church calls the bible the "Word of God." It always has! But it is not the complete Word of God if you leave out the original sacred traditions (the ORAL Word of God as given orally by Christ to the apostles).

Or are you prepared to say that this Oral Tradition, along with it's authority, went poof and disappeared into thin air the moment ink touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament?

So please explain to me how it is we all have the "keys" other then the authority of the keys trickle down to us through the hierarchy of the Church. That does not give me any authority, but it does give me assurrence that I can listen to the authority of the Church with confidence, just like Christ intended it.

From my post on another topic,

Scripture does not tell us that the Keys are the Scriptures.

At the time the keys were given there was only the Old Testament Scripture in existance, and of course they did not tell us much about Jesus and his band of twelve, or the Church that Jesus would build upon the truth of who and what he is, and the faith of those who believe in him. The New Testament is where the Kingdom of God is explained. An explanation of anything is the "key" to its understanding.

How do you come to the conclusion that the "keys" are scripture? I realize that scripture does not support such a proposition!

And incidentally, "keys" is a common Jewish metaphor for "authority," as we refer back to Isaih 22:22 to see how that metaphor is used to describe the authority given to the steward of King David's palace.

Unless you are sola scriptura, which I am convinced you are not because you believe the traditions of the Roman church, then you should be able to accept some truth that is not contained in Scripture, but which your church's tradition holds to be the truth.

You indeed get the idea that I am not a believer in Sola Scriptura, which is a doctrine that could not exist when the Church came before the New Testament was even written!

and when it was written, guess what "authority" declars the "authority" to the scriptures? What "authority" had the audacity to collect together, various books that were to become the New Testament and decide which were to be included and which were not? How dare a Church to do such a thing!

But by here doing that, your Protestant New Testament is identicalto the Catholic one!

Interesting,huh?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

[BobRyan]

There is "one foundation" and "one Rock" - Paul says "That Rock is Christ". Christ is the corner stone - the rock upon which the church is founded - its "one foundation" and "no other foundation can anyone lay other than has been laid - Christ".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Yelsew]

But by here doing that, your Protestant New Testament is identical to the Catholic one!

That is where interpretation comes in and that why the separation between the factions of Christianity exists. Just because the Church Called Catholic happened to gather the writings of the Apostles, prophets, and the Law, does not give them greater authority to interpret them.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
There is "one foundation" and "one Rock" - Paul says "That Rock is Christ". Christ is the corner stone - the rock upon which the church is founded - its "one foundation" and "no other foundation can anyone lay other than has been laid - Christ".

In Christ,

Bob

I only have one question:

Is the "Rock of Christ" that Paul speaks of the same "Rock" as Simon, whose name was changed to "Rock,' and upon him ("ROCK") Christ builds His church?

"ROCK" is a wonderful metaphor for describing several attributes: Steady, faithful, unchanging, the absolute truth, strength, forever, everlasting, etc. Therefore, it is not surprising to see this favorite metaphor used a couple of times in scripture.

The problem is, individuals tend to get them mixed-up and that is exactly what you did here.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But by here doing that, your Protestant New Testament is identical to the Catholic one!

That is where interpretation comes in and that why the separation between the factions of Christianity exists. Just because the Church Called Catholic happened to gather the writings of the Apostles, prophets, and the Law, does not give them greater authority to interpret them. </font>[/QUOTE]You didn't get my point, did you?

How is it that you accept as "God breathed" in whatever Protestant version of the New Testament you have without question, yet at the same time, look upon the very Church who presented that very same New Testament in the form you have in great suspicion and derision?

And again, if the Catholic Church had the authority to do this, why do you then deny her the authority I speak of?

But, if she did not have that authority in the first place, I tell you what I will do for you, Yelsew: Here is a list of the books that did NOT make the grade and get included in the New Testament:

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

Oh, and by the way, the other things the early church settled in those 3rd cenetury councils was the inclusion of Romans, Hebrews and the book of Revelation, which some local churches wanted to have excluded.

So, you have the list, and you have the present New Testament. Go to whatever "authority" you think is valid and compile your own New Testament!

Have fun!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Where does it say that Jesus gave the keys only to Peter?

Yelsew, look at Mt 16:16-19. Jesus gives the keys only to Peter. This is indicative of the establishment of the office of Prime Minister of the Kingdom. Compare this with Is 22:20-22.

And look at

http://carson.boerne.com/catholic/kingdom_ecclesiology.html

I understand the Parallel, but must apologize for not finding a direct link between those passages.

By the way, What specifically are the Keys to the Kingdom? And don't even consider trite answers like "none of your business, or casting pearls, etc., I have been a disciple of Jesus, the Christ twice as long as you've been alive.

 

[Carson Weber]

I understand the Parallel, but must apologize for not finding a direct link between those passages.

Whatever you mean by "direct link", I'm not quite sure. The Gospel writers consistently refer to the Old Testament through use of literary allusion.

What specifically are the Keys to the Kingdom?

The "keys to the kingdom" were a symbol of administrative authority.

Stephen K. Ray elaborates upon this better than I could:

http://www.catholic-convert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=writings/peter6.html

From the article above, "After establishing Peter as the "Rock", Jesus promises to give Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven"-a reference to the steward's keys in Isaiah 22. The Davidic throne had been vacant since the Babylonian captivity (586 BC). The archangel Gabriel announced to Mary her Son Jesus would be given "the throne of his father David" (Lk 1:42). As Jesus, the new King of Israel, re-established the Davidic throne he appointed Peter to the office of royal steward-to rule "over the house" of the king (cf. CCC 553). Keys represent exclusive dominion and this authority was granted to Peter alone. The office of royal steward was successive in Israel. Familiar with their history, the Jews certainly understand that the office of Peter would be filled by successors as was the royal steward's office in Judah. The steward may die, but the office continues."

I place this passage within the larger context of salvation history in this paper I wrote:

http://carson.boerne.com/catholic/kingdom_ecclesiology.html

For a more in-depth review of the primacy of Peter in the Gospels and the Book of Acts, cf. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Acts of the Apostles (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), 21: "The sheer breadth and depth of this evidence is staggering. In passage after passage in the Gospels we see Jesus grooming Peter for a unique mission of leadership and service. In passage after passage in Acts we see Peter engaged in leadership as a spiritual father caring for the family of faith. The testimony of Catholic tradition is thus merely an echo of biblical tradition. No other apostle appears so prominently in NT history. No other apostle receives such honors and is asked to shoulder such responsibilities. Among the apostles, only Simon Peter holds a position of primacy.”

 

[C.S. Murphy]

What was the context that Jesus issued the famous statement of the Rock? It was just after Peter said thou art the Christ. The rock is Peter's confession of faith in Christ not Peter himself. And when you correctly understand this it removes your blinders so you can then clearly understand that the keys were given to all not just to Peter.
Murph

 

[C.S. Murphy]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
I wonder how it is that the sudden availability of scriptures makes good scripture scholars anyway. I certainly am not one, but I do the best I can under the Magisterium of Holy Church.

No need to wonder any further, the answer you seek is the Lord. It is amazing what God can teach a person once they are allowed to read the Bible for themselves. It is strange that you would dare render such a responce when confronted with the wickedness of the roman catholic church concerning their hoarding of the scriptures.You had nothing to do with it but your attempt at diversion was wasted.
Murph

 

[Carson Weber]

The rock is Peter's confession of faith in Christ not Peter himself.

Here are a few faithful Protestant seminary professors and Biblical scholars who disagree with you (including prominent Baptists):

The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).

William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

John A. Broadus
Baptist author

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community. (The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)

 

[Armando]

Originally posted by Yelsew:

The keys are not contained in the "traditions" of any organization. Nor are the keys secretly kept by any particular human authorities. Once Gutenburg came on the scene, and printed the Holy Scriptures, the Keys became available to all who could and would read those Scriptures. It's really hard to put an escaped cat back in a bag!

So God, in bringing the Holy Scriptures to print through his servant Gutenburg, broke the Roman church's hold on the Keys. And Rome don't like it! Well, you can either get with the program, or suffer from being smothered by your own stifling tradition!

I really like the freedom the Truth has brought to me!

Yelsew:

Do you know if Gutenberg Bible had 66 books or 73 books? Just curious.

Armando

 

[Carson Weber]

So God, in bringing the Holy Scriptures to print through his servant Gutenburg, broke the Roman church's hold on the Keys. And Rome don't like it!

*grin* ... and what profession of Christianity did Johannes Gutenberg hold to? And of what profession's canon and content did the first Bible he printed consist of?

Hint: it involves that cuss word that begins with a "C".

[ May 21, 2003, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]