Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is the biblical justification for Peter as the first Pope?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    I already explained to you in post #80 that you mischaracterized my argument. You ignored that. Try reading it again for comprehension, because your response in post #85 bears no coherent resemblance to what took place. Hint: I never said "singlehandedly."
    Well, saying that Peter founded the Church of Rome suggests that he did so by himself. I didn't think adding an arbitrary term like "singlehandedly" would undermine that assumption.

    I understand you stated that right afterwards. However, that does not mitigate the emphatic language used in your initial description of the passage.
    Eh, yeah, it really does. I really can't believe you're trying to making a problem out of this.

    and your continued emphasis on Peter's speech belies your protestation.
    How does the fact that Peter stood up to deliver his speech have anything to do with the speech itself?

    If it's not hard evidence, why do you keep insisting that yours is the only reading that makes any sense?
    What, the speech, or the fact that he stands up to deliver the speech, because once again, that part is not hard evidence.

    And I'm not trying to discredit you at all, much less 'very hard'; I don't see any need to do so.
    Then why are you trying to make a problem out of something that clearly isn't one, and that doesn't even matter anyway?

    No, it's not. An opinion is much more forcefully stated.
    No, it's really not. You're literally just arguing meaningless semantics now.

    Yes, you are. Your response makes that quite evident. I disagree that Peter is consciously asserting any authority whatsoever.
    No, I'm not. As I already said, and explained with an example, Peter's statement only makes sense if he had a higher authority than the others.

    Why did the feeding of the 5,000 need to be mentioned more than one time? Why did the crucifixion need to be mentioned more than one time? Important concepts tend to be repeated.
    Yeah, and why was the account of Adam and Eve only stated once in the entirety of the Old Testament? Must not have been very important.

    Seriously though, only 'one' person received the keys, so it makes sense that they were only mentioned once. I'm willing to grant that they may not have been that big an issue at the time, in the same way that a polio outbreak wouldn't have been considered an immediate issue in Poland during Nazi occupation.

    No, you haven't. You've made some assertions regarding the keys, but have yet to provide an iota of support other than a vague reference to Is. 22. You haven't even divulged the other alleged powers of the keys, much less proved them.
    The references to Isaiah, and to Revelations, are very clear. The keys are a symbol of authority over the Kingdom of Heaven, here on Earth. Anyone who receives them possesses authority over God's kingdom on Earth. Before it was Israel, now it is the Church.

    If the keys are in Jesus' hands, then the power invested in them is not delegated.
    How? If the Pope is the representative of Christ, then those powers can be delegated to him, without Christ loosing those powers himself.

    And it would be nice if you would at least attempt to explain why the powers invested in those keys are appropriately given to Peter.
    Because Jesus himself delegates the powers of the keys to Peter in that verse from Matthew. I don't get how this is so hard to understand. It's not some sort of metaphor that needs to be deciphered, it's stated quite plainly.
    Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-20-2014, 10:58 AM.
    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

    -Thomas Aquinas

    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

    -Hernando Cortez

    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
      Well, saying that Peter founded the Church of Rome suggests that he did so by himself.
      And asserting that Peter laid the "supporting foundations" suggests that everyone else built on his work.
      I didn't think adding an arbitrary term like "singlehandedly" would undermine that assumption.
      What makes you think the word is an arbitrary term? For that matter, if you thought it was arbitrary, why did you bother adding it?
      Eh, yeah, it really does. I really can't believe you're trying to making a problem out of this.
      And I can't believe that you think you can carry on a meaningful argument while blithely ignoring the meanings of the words you use. Consult a dictionary before you embarrass yourself further.
      How does the fact that Peter stood up to deliver his speech have anything to do with the speech itself?
      I'm pretty sure that's your argument to make, not mine. You asserted that both the act of standing up and the content of the speech were assertions of authority.
      What, the speech, or the fact that he stands up to deliver the speech, because once again, that part is not hard evidence.
      You sort of lumped all of that together as "not hard evidence" despite the emphatic language used.
      No, I'm not. As I already said, and explained with an example, Peter's statement only makes sense if he had a higher authority than the others.
      And as I've said, Peter's statement makes sense regardless of his level of authority when compared to the other statements and actions of Peter in scripture. Your example assumes the point you're attempting to prove, and so is worthless for proving said point.
      Yeah, and why was the account of Adam and Eve only stated once in the entirety of the Old Testament? Must not have been very important.
      One book of Genesis, four Gospels. You're comparing apples to oranges.
      Seriously though, only 'one' person received the keys, so it makes sense that they were only mentioned once.
      In a single line, in a single gospel (out of 4). That "only 'one' person received the keys" would make it more important, not less.
      I'm willing to grant that they may not have been that big an issue at the time, in the same way that a polio outbreak wouldn't have been considered an immediate issue in Poland during Nazi occupation.
      I'm fairly certain that disciples who were concerned about who was going to sit on Jesus' right and left in the coming kingdom (the two positions of highest authority after Jesus Himself) would have had something to say about Peter being granted authority by the "keys." That would've been a huge issue. Your example is inapt.
      The references to Isaiah, and to Revelations, are very clear. The keys are a symbol of authority over the Kingdom of Heaven, here on Earth. Anyone who receives them possesses authority over God's kingdom on Earth.
      You are clearly not reading the references to keys in Isaiah and Revelation (it is one revelation, not several) in context. A vague assertion does not do justice to the texts involved. I looked at the texts before I asked. Did you bother to look at them before answering?
      How? If the Pope is the representative of Christ, then those powers can be delegated to him, without Christ loosing those powers himself.
      Then why can't the powers be delegated by the Pope to others? And why were they delegated by Peter only to the Pope in Rome, when Peter assuredly ordained many bishops elsewhere? If it's because Peter died in Rome, Pope St. Martin I died in Cherson (in the East). Why didn't the seat of the Pope shift there if it shifted with Peter?
      Because Jesus himself delegates the powers of the keys to Peter in that verse from Matthew. I don't get how this is so hard to understand. It's not some sort of metaphor that needs to be deciphered, it's stated quite plainly.
      You misunderstand what I'm asking. Why are the powers of the keys mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation appropriately delegated to Peter? I'm looking for a rational exegesis of the texts, not a vague assertion.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #93
        And asserting that Peter laid the "supporting foundations" suggests that everyone else built on his work.
        Yes, however, when you called me on it, I already told you I meant something else. I didn't spend five posts trying to erroneously claim that you were misrepresenting me.

        What makes you think the word is an arbitrary term? For that matter, if you thought it was arbitrary, why did you bother adding it?
        Why wouldn't it be an arbitrary term? If you said he founded it by himself, then why would adding the term "singlehandedly" matter? As for why I added it, I don't know, to make it more descriptive, why wouldn't I add it.?

        And I can't believe that you think you can carry on a meaningful argument while blithely ignoring the meanings of the words you use. Consult a dictionary before you embarrass yourself further.
        And I can't believe you keep trying to misdirect by dwelling on this stupid non-issue.

        1) You still haven't explained how the language I used to describe Peter standing up is emphatic.
        2) You still haven't explained why this even matters, considering that, right after, I stated that it was not hard evidence.

        I'm pretty sure that's your argument to make, not mine. You asserted that both the act of standing up and the content of the speech were assertions of authority.
        And I also stated that the act of standing, by itself, was not hard evidence.

        You sort of lumped all of that together as "not hard evidence" despite the emphatic language used.
        I only said that the act of him standing was not hard evidence, the speech is. Pay attention.

        And as I've said, Peter's statement makes sense regardless of his level of authority when compared to the other statements and actions of Peter in scripture. Your example assumes the point you're attempting to prove, and so is worthless for proving said point.
        And as I've said, no, it doesn't. Peter may have been brash before, but when he was wrong, he was always refuted and/or rebuked. Also, yes, my example does assume the point I'm attempting to prove, that's the entire point of an example, and every example, ever. It's supposed to show that that's what was happening in this situation. Peter accuses the others of testing God if they go against him, and thus, his statement is representative of the entire Council, and, indeed, God himself. It's very much like the leader of the Senate making a statement representative of the entire Senate, however, according to you, Peter was just a Senator, not the leader of the Senate. If you're just attributing this statement to Peter's brashness, then why wasn't he rebuked? The idea that everyone would have just ignored such a statement, if it was incorrect, at a Church Council no less, is untenable, regardless of how brash Peter usually was.

        One book of Genesis, four Gospels. You're comparing apples to oranges.
        Actually, 49 books of the Old Testament, and six books of the Pentateuch. The parting of the Red Sea, the exodus out of Egypt, the law laid down by Moses ect. were all mentioned many times, but Adam and Eve, only once. According to your logic, that means that account was not important.

        In a single line, in a single gospel (out of 4). That "only 'one' person received the keys" would make it more important, not less.
        Well, all the disciples received the power to bind and loosen, so going by that logic, that makes it less important than the keys.

        I'm fairly certain that disciples who were concerned about who was going to sit on Jesus' right and left in the coming kingdom (the two positions of highest authority after Jesus Himself) would have had something to say about Peter being granted authority by the "keys." That would've been a huge issue. Your example is inapt.
        The Gospels were written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus. What the disciples were concerned about at the time of Jesus is irrelevant.

        You are clearly not reading the references to keys in Isaiah and Revelation (it is one revelation, not several) in context. A vague assertion does not do justice to the texts involved. I looked at the texts before I asked. Did you bother to look at them before answering?
        I see you're projecting once again. I already clearly explained my case, it is actually you is making the vague assertion by suggesting that I'm not reading them "in context" without actually explaining why. Your unfounded accusation of me answering before reading is meaningless, as that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

        Then why can't the powers be delegated by the Pope to others?
        Because the Pope is a representative of Jesus, not Jesus himself, and he doesn't have the authority to do so.

        And why were they delegated by Peter only to the Pope in Rome, when Peter assuredly ordained many bishops elsewhere?
        Eh, I don't think you understand the case. Peter did not delegate the powers to the Bishop of Rome, it's held that Peter 'was' the Bishop of Rome.

        If it's because Peter died in Rome, Pope St. Martin I died in Cherson (in the East). Why didn't the seat of the Pope shift there if it shifted with Peter?
        Rome was chosen as the primal Church through Divine Providence.

        You misunderstand what I'm asking. Why are the powers of the keys mentioned in Isaiah and Revelation appropriately delegated to Peter? I'm looking for a rational exegesis of the texts, not a vague assertion.
        How is it a vague assertion? Keys were used as symbolic of the authority over the Kingdom of Heaven, which used to be Israel. Now, that the Old Covenant has been replace by the New Covenant, the Kingdom of Heaven is the Church. Thus, by Jesus delegating the Keys onto Peter, he was making him the head of the Church.
        Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-24-2014, 05:28 PM.
        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

        -Thomas Aquinas

        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

        -Hernando Cortez

        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
          Keys were used as symbolic of the authority over the Kingdom of Heaven, which used to be Israel. Now, that the Old Covenant has been replace by the New Covenant, the Kingdom of Heaven is the Church. Thus, by Jesus delegating the Keys onto Peter, he was making him the head of the Church.
          I did a search in Bible Gateway of the ESV Bible using the keyphrase "kingdom of heaven" https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...startnumber=26 There is no OT verse that has that phrase. All NT verses containing that are in Matthew. None of these so much as to imply that Israel is the Kingdom of Heaven; indeed, my impression is that it is not so.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
            Yes, however, when you called me on it, I already told you I meant something else. I didn't spend five posts trying to erroneously claim that you were misrepresenting me.
            You have yet to clarify what you actually meant. As it stands, your posts indeed misrepresent me.
            Why wouldn't it be an arbitrary term? If you said he founded it by himself, then why would adding the term "singlehandedly" matter? As for why I added it, I don't know, to make it more descriptive, why wouldn't I add it.?
            Where did I allege Peter founded it by himself?
            And I can't believe you keep trying to misdirect by dwelling on this stupid non-issue.
            That words have particular meanings is not a 'stupid non-issue.' It is fundamental to the act of communication.
            1) You still haven't explained how the language I used to describe Peter standing up is emphatic.
            Do I need to explain how water is wet?

            Here's what you said (emphasis added):
            By standing up after the debate, to deliver his speech, before all the apostles, he engaged in a prominent physical gesture asserting his authority over the others. The silence after his speech also indicates the finality of it, no one disputes his speech or the right to make it.
            Maybe you can tell me what part of that is in any way tentative (in other words, the opposite of emphatic).
            2) You still haven't explained why this even matters, considering that, right after, I stated that it was not hard evidence.
            Do you routinely introduce evidence that doesn't matter in your debates?
            And I also stated that the act of standing, by itself, was not hard evidence.
            No, you said the act of standing and the lack of a negative response was not hard evidence - though your continued argument implies that the lack of a response is pretty important.
            I only said that the act of him standing was not hard evidence, the speech is. Pay attention.
            You're right in that you excepted the content of the speech from the 'not hard evidence' admission. I erred in including the content of the speech with that. You then alleged that it was important that Peter, unlike the other apostles, did not speak of his experience alone (and then two thirds of what you chose to quote was recounting his own experiences while implying that none of what you quoted was recounting his experience).
            And as I've said, no, it doesn't. Peter may have been brash before, but when he was wrong, he was always refuted and/or rebuked.
            (emphasis added) All that the lack of response means is that the others did not think Peter was wrong.
            Also, yes, my example does assume the point I'm attempting to prove, that's the entire point of an example, and every example, ever. It's supposed to show that that's what was happening in this situation. Peter accuses the others of testing God if they go against him, and thus, his statement is representative of the entire Council, and, indeed, God himself. It's very much like the leader of the Senate making a statement representative of the entire Senate, however, according to you, Peter was just a Senator, not the leader of the Senate. If you're just attributing this statement to Peter's brashness, then why wasn't he rebuked? The idea that everyone would have just ignored such a statement, if it was incorrect, at a Church Council no less, is untenable, regardless of how brash Peter usually was.
            You're assuming that Peter got away with making such a brash statement because he was the leader of the Senate, and only the leader of the Senate can make brash statements to the Senate with impunity. On further reflection, however, the leader of the Senate does not ever presume to speak for the Senate, so your example doesn't establish what you think it does. Lastly, you fail to acknowledge that there are two possible reasons for the council not responding negatively to Peter's speech; either he's the leader who brooks no argument or the council thinks his statement is correct.
            Actually, 49 books of the Old Testament, and six books of the Pentateuch.
            I assume you mean '39' and 'five.'
            The parting of the Red Sea, the exodus out of Egypt, the law laid down by Moses ect. were all mentioned many times, but Adam and Eve, only once. According to your logic, that means that account was not important.
            In the account of Israel following (or, rather, mostly not following) the law, Adam and Eve were indeed not that important. Within the narrative of pre-Abrahamic history, on the other hand, Adam and Eve were quite important (as indicated by the words spent on detailing it). The point I was making (and you missed), however, is that there is only one narrative of pre-Abrahamic history, and so there was only one opportunity for an incident in that history to be mentioned; on the other hand, there are four narratives of Jesus' ministry, so there were four opportunities for an incident in that history to be mentioned.
            Well, all the disciples received the power to bind and loosen, so going by that logic, that makes it less important than the keys.
            No.
            The Gospels were written 30-40 years after the death of Jesus. What the disciples were concerned about at the time of Jesus is irrelevant.
            Then why to the Gospels frequently narrate the concerns of the disciples?
            I see you're projecting once again. I already clearly explained my case, it is actually you is making the vague assertion by suggesting that I'm not reading them "in context" without actually explaining why. Your unfounded accusation of me answering before reading is meaningless, as that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
            Fine. Then it should be simple for you to point to where you clearly explained your case and showed the relevance of the passages in context. Please do. Also, please show how it seems that I am answering before reading when I stated explicitly that I had read the passages in question.
            Because the Pope is a representative of Jesus, not Jesus himself, and he doesn't have the authority to do so.
            Got any proof for that?
            Eh, I don't think you understand the case. Peter did not delegate the powers to the Bishop of Rome, it's held that Peter 'was' the Bishop of Rome.
            Peter also 'was' the Bishop of Antioch.
            Rome was chosen as the primal Church through Divine Providence.
            Got any pre-pseudodecretal evidence for that, let alone scriptural evidence? Funny that Pope Gregory the Great failed to mention that when he thought the Patriarch of Constantinople was claiming to be the universal pontiff. That's properly a topic for another thread though.
            How is it a vague assertion? Keys were used as symbolic of the authority over the Kingdom of Heaven, which used to be Israel. Now, that the Old Covenant has been replace by the New Covenant, the Kingdom of Heaven is the Church. Thus, by Jesus delegating the Keys onto Peter, he was making him the head of the Church.
            The vague assertion I'm referring to is the assertion that the keys in Isaiah 22 and Revelation are relevant to the 'keys' given to Peter. All you've done to address the specifics of the passages is to wave them in my direction. I understand your assertion regarding the symbolism just fine; it's the support for such that I find lacking. As an aside, I've never seen Israel called the "Kingdom of heaven' before; I'll have to think about that.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #96
              You have yet to clarify what you actually meant. As it stands, your posts indeed misrepresent me.
              No, it really doesn't. As for what I meant, I should have said 'a' foundation, not 'the' foundations.

              Where did I allege Peter founded it by himself?
              Because you said that Peter founded it, that suggests that he did it by himself.

              That words have particular meanings is not a 'stupid non-issue.' It is fundamental to the act of communication.
              Considering that I stated right after that it was not hard evidence, yes, it really is.

              Maybe you can tell me what part of that is in any way tentative (in other words, the opposite of emphatic).
              Well that's one step down, good job.

              Do you routinely introduce evidence that doesn't matter in your debates?
              No, but that's why it's supporting evidence, not hard evidence.

              You're right in that you excepted the content of the speech from the 'not hard evidence' admission. I erred in including the content of the speech with that. You then alleged that it was important that Peter, unlike the other apostles, did not speak of his experience alone (and then two thirds of what you chose to quote was recounting his own experiences while implying that none of what you quoted was recounting his experience).
              His experience alone, read carefully.

              (emphasis added) All that the lack of response means is that the others did not think Peter was wrong.
              Agreed, and that's my point. His statement was one of asserting authority over the others.

              You're assuming that Peter got away with making such a brash statement because he was the leader of the Senate, and only the leader of the Senate can make brash statements to the Senate with impunity.
              No, only the leader of the Senate can make statements 'authoritative' to the Senate.

              On further reflection, however, the leader of the Senate does not ever presume to speak for the Senate, so your example doesn't establish what you think it does.
              Yeah, I admit that was a bad example....probably should've specified I wasn't talking about the American Senate too, but you get the gist of it.

              Lastly, you fail to acknowledge that there are two possible reasons for the council not responding negatively to Peter's speech; either he's the leader who brooks no argument or the council thinks his statement is correct.
              Exactly, and as I already explained, his statement wasn't just a brash statement, it was a statement of authority. Peter accused the others of 'testing God' if they went against his judgment, something that would only make sense if his authority was, or he thought his authority was, higher than the others. If it was the former, then they stayed silent because they knew he had authority, if it was the latter, then why did they stay silent if Peter made a brash statement implying authority, but didn't really have it?

              I assume you mean '39' and 'five.'
              I actually meant 46 and five.

              In the account of Israel following (or, rather, mostly not following) the law, Adam and Eve were indeed not that important. Within the narrative of pre-Abrahamic history, on the other hand, Adam and Eve were quite important (as indicated by the words spent on detailing it). The point I was making (and you missed), however, is that there is only one narrative of pre-Abrahamic history, and so there was only one opportunity for an incident in that history to be mentioned; on the other hand, there are four narratives of Jesus' ministry, so there were four opportunities for an incident in that history to be mentioned.
              Well I see your point, but still, you have to justify the assertion that the more times something is mentioned equals how important something is.

              No.
              You said that, since only one person received the keys, that makes it more important, and, going by that line of reasoning, I concluded that since more people received the other powers, that they must be less important.

              Then why to the Gospels frequently narrate the concerns of the disciples?
              Probably because they were relevant to the purpose of the Gospel.

              Fine. Then it should be simple for you to point to where you clearly explained your case and showed the relevance of the passages in context. Please do.
              ....I did so in the previous post.

              Also, please show how it seems that I am answering before reading when I stated explicitly that I had read the passages in question.
              You first.

              Got any proof for that?
              You want proof that a representative can't delegate powers that are delegated onto him? Or you probably want proof that Peter was designated as the representative of Christ, in which case, you probably know which verse I'm going to point to. Hint: Keys.

              Peter also 'was' the Bishop of Antioch.
              He was reigned in Antioch for a short while during the Jewish expulsion from Rome, that is why he is held to be the first Bishop of Antioch. As soon as the expulsion was over, he headed straight back to Rome.

              Got any pre-pseudodecretal evidence for that, let alone scriptural evidence?
              If you start another thread, I'll present it.

              Funny that Pope Gregory the Great failed to mention that when he thought the Patriarch of Constantinople was claiming to be the universal pontiff.
              Eh, the Patriarch was a power-hungry maniac that tried to base himself out of the non-existent See of Constantinople (which, by the way, is what the Easter Schism was based out of), he probably knew, and just didn't care.

              The vague assertion I'm referring to is the assertion that the keys in Isaiah 22 and Revelation are relevant to the 'keys' given to Peter.
              What other 'keys' would they be, exactly? The fact that they're also called the keys to the "Kingdom of Heaven", is a large proof as well.

              As an aside, I've never seen Israel called the "Kingdom of heaven' before; I'll have to think about that.
              Well, I'll say that in the Old Testament, they're not actually called the "Kingdom of Heaven" by name, however, it doesn't take that big a leap to go from "Kingdom of God on Earth" which is what Israel indisputably was, to "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth".
              Last edited by TimelessTheist; 09-24-2014, 11:40 PM.
              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

              -Thomas Aquinas

              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

              -Hernando Cortez

              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                Well, I'll say that in the Old Testament, they're not actually called the "Kingdom of Heaven" by name, however, it doesn't take that big a leap to go from "Kingdom of God on Earth" which is what Israel indisputably was, to "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth".
                So that's what Jesus meant in Matthew? I don't think so. Would Jesus really say that "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," if you're right?
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                  So that's what Jesus meant in Matthew? I don't think so. Would Jesus really say that "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," if you're right?
                  Where does he say that, again?
                  Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                  -Thomas Aquinas

                  I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                  -Hernando Cortez

                  What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                  -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                    Where does he say that, again?
                    One verse is Matthew 4:17(b).
                    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      One verse is Matthew 4:17(b).
                      Well, either way, the statement clearly isn't a literal one.
                      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                      -Thomas Aquinas

                      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                      -Hernando Cortez

                      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                        Well, either way, the statement clearly isn't a literal one.
                        Care to explain what you think Jesus meant? (Might be relevant.)
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          I did a search in Bible Gateway of the ESV Bible using the keyphrase "kingdom of heaven" https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...startnumber=26 There is no OT verse that has that phrase. All NT verses containing that are in Matthew. None of these so much as to imply that Israel is the Kingdom of Heaven; indeed, my impression is that it is not so.
                          The explanation that I accept is that Jesus was speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic saying, "the kingdom of the LORD" referring to God's kingdom by His Name. Only the writer of Matthew renders it "the kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God" interchangeably. All the other writers render it "the kingdom of God."

                          Compare,
                          ". . . that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD. . . ." -- Deuteronomy 8:3.
                          ". . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." -- Matthew 4:4.

                          ". . . But Jesus said, Allow little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 19:14.
                          ". . . But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Mark 10:14.
                          ". . . But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Allow little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Luke 18:16.
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            The explanation that I accept is that Jesus was speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic saying, "the kingdom of the LORD" referring to God's kingdom by His Name. Only the writer of Matthew renders it "the kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God" interchangeably. All the other writers render it "the kingdom of God."

                            Compare,
                            ". . . that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD. . . ." -- Deuteronomy 8:3.
                            ". . . It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." -- Matthew 4:4.

                            ". . . But Jesus said, Allow little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." -- Matthew 19:14.
                            ". . . But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Mark 10:14.
                            ". . . But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Allow little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." -- Luke 18:16.
                            I will do another search using the keyphrase "kingdom of the Lord," but a quick question: Why did you include those "mouth of the Lord" verses?
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              I will do another search using the keyphrase "kingdom of the Lord," but a quick question: Why did you include those "mouth of the Lord" verses?
                              No, that is not what I had done. Rather I had noticed, only Matthew uses the term "heaven." Where the same quote in Mark or Luke used the term "God." Only the literal meaning of God's name, as I understand it, accounts for this, as see it. But if you do a search for "kingdom" you can come up with these:

                              Consider this, ". . . And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: . . . and it shall stand for ever." -- Daniel 2:44.

                              And, ". . . the God of Daniel: for he [is] the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion [shall be even] unto the end." -- Daniel 6:26.

                              Also, ". . . the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever." -- Daniel 7:18.

                              Then there is, ". . . Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom [is] a right sceptre. . . ." -- Psalm 45:6.

                              "But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom." -- Hebrews 1:8.
                              Last edited by 37818; 09-27-2014, 08:05 PM.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                                Because you said that Peter founded it, that suggests that he did it by himself.
                                I said that Catholics believe that, not that I believe that. I will modify my allegation to to effect that you do not believe Peter initially founded the church of Rome, but Peter is what made the church of Rome important.
                                Considering that I stated right after that it was not hard evidence, yes, it really is.
                                Non-answer.
                                Well that's one step down, good job.
                                Another non-answer. Since you gave an irrelevant response, I'll assume that you realize that you were being emphatic and are too proud to admit to it.
                                No, but that's why it's supporting evidence, not hard evidence.
                                Supporting evidence logically does matter. Irrelevant material doesn't support anything at all.
                                His experience alone, read carefully.
                                Read carefully yourself; you might then notice that I had picked up on that.
                                Agreed, and that's my point. His statement was one of asserting authority over the others.
                                And round about we go. Why do you assert agreement, then add the very point I disagree with?
                                No, only the leader of the Senate can make statements 'authoritative' to the Senate. Yeah, I admit that was a bad example....probably should've specified I wasn't talking about the American Senate too, but you get the gist of it.
                                Yeah, that would've helped. I'm familiar with the American Senate. The Roman one, not so much.
                                Exactly, and as I already explained, his statement wasn't just a brash statement, it was a statement of authority. Peter accused the others of 'testing God' if they went against his judgment, something that would only make sense if his authority was, or he thought his authority was, higher than the others. If it was the former, then they stayed silent because they knew he had authority, if it was the latter, then why did they stay silent if Peter made a brash statement implying authority, but didn't really have it?
                                Again, you assert agreement and then equate what I said to a position with which I have repeatedly disagreed in this thread. That's dishonest and deceitful. Please stop doing it.
                                I actually meant 46 and five.
                                Ok. I am so used to seeing 39 books of the OT from my Protestant days that I automatically think any other number is a typo.
                                Well I see your point, but still, you have to justify the assertion that the more times something is mentioned equals how important something is.
                                I should qualify that it is most appropriate for where we have parallel accounts (such as the Gospels in the NT and Kings/Chronicles in the OT). I admit that Adam and Eve are only mentioned in the first part of Genesis in the OT; on the other hand, I don't know off-hand where else in the OT they would be relevant.
                                You said that, since only one person received the keys, that makes it more important, and, going by that line of reasoning, I concluded that since more people received the other powers, that they must be less important.
                                Let me clarify. If only one person received certain authority from Jesus (as opposed to the whole group of his inner disciples), that would be very important. The twelve apostles are clearly Jesus' representatives on earth after the Ascension. On the other hand, Peter's alleged primacy is murky at best. There is no grumbling from the other apostles that Peter was chosen over them. There is never any explicit pronouncement of Peter's primacy over the entire church. In fact, Paul treats James, Peter, and John equally as 'pillars' (Gal 2:9) - and as has already been mentioned, Paul showed no compunction about rebuking Peter to his face.
                                ....I did so in the previous post.
                                No you didn't. You made three unsupported assertions.
                                You first.
                                You're the one attempting to make your case. I've already explained in general why I think the comparisons are inapt.
                                You want proof that a representative can't delegate powers that are delegated onto him? Or you probably want proof that Peter was designated as the representative of Christ, in which case, you probably know which verse I'm going to point to. Hint: Keys.
                                Er, no. You made three assertions, two of which I disagree with. (In case you're uncertain, I agree that the Pope is not Jesus.)
                                He was reigned in Antioch for a short while during the Jewish expulsion from Rome, that is why he is held to be the first Bishop of Antioch. As soon as the expulsion was over, he headed straight back to Rome.
                                You can safely discount the source of this allegation as completely unreliable. The Jewish expulsion from Rome happened well before Peter ever got there (AD 49, IIRC). Priscilla and Aquila, whom we know from scripture were among those expelled (Acts 18:2), were back in Rome by the time Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans (Rom 16:3); Paul, meanwhile, inexplicably neglects to address the putative bishop of the church he's writing to. On the other hand, in Acts 28 (c. AD 62), the Jews of Rome came to Paul to get the low-down on this Jesus sect. Was the 'apostle to the Jews' so unconscionably lax that he had not yet preached the gospel to them for at least his first 13 years there?
                                If you start another thread, I'll present it.
                                If you can't do better than the tripe you posted here regarding the correspondence of Pope Gregory the Great, don't bother. "Knew and just didn't care"? lawl.
                                What other 'keys' would they be, exactly? The fact that they're also called the keys to the "Kingdom of Heaven", is a large proof as well.
                                ...except that they're not.
                                Well, I'll say that in the Old Testament, they're not actually called the "Kingdom of Heaven" by name, however, it doesn't take that big a leap to go from "Kingdom of God on Earth" which is what Israel indisputably was, to "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth".
                                I'm not sure that I would call Israel the "Kingdom of God on Earth"; I've never seen that before either.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X