Amen sister! Amen!Originally Posted by packyderms_wife
Judge
Amen sister! Amen!
'A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument,'" writes von Campe
Judge
I am not sure where you believe we disagree.
Perhaps you glanced over where I said to make the very sober decision. That encompasses believing. One cannot make a decision to love and follow Him and die to self without believing.
'A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument,'" writes von Campe
Land Owner
But who does Jesus ask to feed His sheep ?
John.21
[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.
[18] Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go."
The one who was given the Keys of the Kingdom.
Land Owner
Originally Posted by Fisheater
Emily I have no doubt you love the Lord ... But you only teach and practice half of the Truth .... You have part of it ..Not the whole.
Jesus also teaches us ....
John6
[35]Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.
[47] Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.
[48] I am the bread of life.
He asks us to believe this also.... Why does He ask us to believe and swear by it ....
[60]Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
This is the Whole Truth .... This is what the Book teaches...From Melchizedek to Abraham to David to the Passover .... It has always been about the Bread of Life.
That is what Jesus is asking us to believe in His Bread Of Life teaching ? Or is He asking us to believe .....
John 6
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
Judge
I hope you receive this with the love it is presented and that this is how I see things. Nothing more, nothing less.
I understand how the RCC has interpreted that. I don't believe Peter was given the leadership. Jesus had also rebuked Peter for being led by Satan so Peter clearly had a weakness for being deceived.
Then Jesus told Peter he would deny Christ 3 times. Peter was about as human as it gets. The scripture where Jesus said, 'upon this rock I will build my church' was the truth that Peter spoke - not on Peter (a flawed human being).
The biggest lesson I learn from Peter is that Christ does not choose the perfect or those who do no wrong but even men and women like Peter who is so easily deceived and who has a heart that gets scared. Seeing how full of flaws Peter was gives me hope so many times.
When Peter went out to walk on the water and then when the winds came, Jesus asked him, "Why do you doubt?" That scripture has shown me so many times that Peter also was easily filled with doubt and fear and yet Jesus told him all He has to do is believe and Jesus does the rest.
Peter was given the gospel to take to the world. It was because of his flaws that so many of us relate. I would not want to put Peter up as the head of anything except a perfect example for the rest of us to have hope that if Jesus could trust Peter, then all of us have hope.
Peter was weak, scared, and so-so in his devotion.
Mark 14:37
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour?
Matthew 16
Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
The 'Keys to the Kingdom' is the TRUTH of the Gospel. It is not a right or a position of leadership but the MESSAGE that Jesus is the Messiah. That is the whole of what that scripture was about.
They were given powers to perform miracles to prove to the unbelievers that they were indeed of God but that does not mean power OVER people.
You will not find anywhere in scripture where Peter is the head of the church. Jesus is the HEAD of the church, the body of Christ. We have ONE mediator - Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 4:15
Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
Jesus also said this:
Matthew 23:10
Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.
Matthew 23:9
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
John 1:12
Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
That scripture telling Peter to feed His sheep was to help Peter realize that Jesus forgave Him for denying Him 3 times (that is why the three responses from Jesus) and instructions about how ALL of us are to respond to our gift of grace and redemption.
Jesus also told everyone how He would discern who lived lives in showing their love for Him. He told EVERYONE the same thing that He told Peter.
Matthew 25
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
'A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument,'" writes von Campe
Judge
I understand the RCC focuses a great deal on that.
As a matter of fact that scripture caused me to stumble greatly so I prayed about it and researched it a great deal in reading other scripture.
1. God completely forbids drinking of blood and cannibalism. So clearly Jesus is not speaking against scripture. If He were, He would not be the messiah.
Leviticus 7:27
Anyone who eats blood must be cut off from their people.’”
2. Jesus also states, to those who remained, that what He spoke was spiritual, not of the flesh.
I believe that scripture was said by Jesus to separate out His true followers, those who trusted Him and those who were just tagging along to see where it was all going. They didn't really love Him or they would not have been so easily discouraged. There was much more coming where they would need to trust Him and Jesus needed to sort out the herd.
Saying that did it.
John 6
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” 61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[Or are Spirit; or are spirit] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
And with that, Jesus had His loyal following with whom He could trust with the whole message and gospel. He had culled the herd.
So that scripture was never meant to be taken literally and to those who believe it was do not understand that scripture does not contradict scripture and that is what Jesus knew too.
That is also how He countered the devil when He was tested in the desert.
When satan threw scripture at Him to taunt Him, Jesus responded with scripture to show that the implication satan was using about a scripture could not be true because of the scripture Jesus presented.
That is how we can discern truth from error.
'A person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument,'" writes von Campe
Land Owner
So many issues raised in posts above .. . each one could take a full post or more to address.
One point concerned the leadership of Peter, giving several reasons why it would be incorrect to believe Peter had been given the leadership of the Church, all of which point to his personal failings,
he doubtedand nothing which points to any command of Christ's that he was nothing more than simply another apostle.
he denied Christ 3 times
Christ rebuked him, calling him satan
Yet the poster went on to say:
"The biggest lesson I learn from Peter is that Christ does not choose the perfect or those who do no wrong but even men and women like Peter who is so easily deceived and who has a heart that gets scared. Seeing how full of flaws Peter was gives me hope so many times."So right there, the reasons given for not believing that Jesus made Peter head of the Church, his personal failings, are the very reasons that would not stop Jesus from making Peter the head of the Church, because Chrsit does not choose the perfect or those who do no wrong to fill roles He has chosen for them to fill.
So, since it is not personal perfection or lack thereof that would put Peter into the position of leading the Church or keep him out, then it must be something else and his personal failings have nothing to do with Christ's decision one way or the other.
Now I would like to elaborate on the rebuke of Peter by Jesus immediately following the passage where Jesus
- changes his name,
- tells him he is the Rock Jesus will build His Church upon
- tells him the gates of hell will not prevail against Church (and by necessity him)
- gives Peter, and only Peter, the keys of the Kingdom
- gives Peter the power to bind and loose.
Matthew 16Then:
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
21 16 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. 22 18 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you." 23 He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." 24What was actually happening with that rebuke and what did it mean?
19 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, 20 take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 21 26 What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?
At the time of this incident, the fulfillment of Jesus' revelation He would build His Church on the Rock, Peter, was still in the future. Jesus, in this passage, is giving a promise to do so, stating what will be, not what already is.
As such, Peter had not yet assumed the office given, and the Church had not yet been started. That all happened after the resurrection. - After the resurrection, Jesus says to Peter "feed My sheep and tend My lambs" (John 12:15-17).
But right here, when Christ rebuked Peter, calling him "satan", was he calling him the devil, our enemy satan, the arch fallen one?
No . . he was rebuking Peter for still thinking as a man does, and not as God does, even though Peter had the very best interests of Jesus, his friend, at heart. Jesus then used the opportunity to teach the Twelve about the difference between how man naturally thinks and how God thinks about holding onto life versus serving Him.
So what does "satan" mean here?
The word "satan" means advesary or opponent. When Peter tried to stop Jesus from going to Jerusalem and suffering, he was UNWITTINLY opposing God's plan of salvation, so this use of the word "satan" emphasizes how very contrary Peter's thinking and intentions were to God's plan for Jesus to be Redeemer, and so necessitated such a stern rebuke, to expose this very fact.
Peter had not yet been made the head of the Church at the time of this rebuke; it was a promised position, one he had been pre-selected for. So this rebuke does not in any way speak against the fact that Peter did become the Rock Jesus built His Church on as promised.
Instead of making one long post here to address this passage to answer the points made against the Catholic understanding, I will start a new post.
Land Owner
Still addressing the claims made above against the Catholic understanding of who Peter is .. the Rock on which Christ would build His Church, the one to whom alone the keys of the kingdom were given, let's continue exploring that passage from Matth 16.
Now, let's look at Peter's name change from Simon to Peter.
When God has given someone a new name it is highly momentous and significant. So Peter's new name is just as significant as well.
The common argument against the Catholic understanding is Jesus called Peter a little stone, and then called the Rock He would build His Church upon a massive Rock, so it can't mean Peter. This argument creates significant problems in interpreation.
If Jesus intended to call Peter a small stone, "He would have engaged in a bizarre and inexplicable wordplay"There is nothing in all of scripture that even remotely resembles God acting in such a way when giving someone a new name.
a) Jesus calls Simon "blessed,"
b) He tells Simon he received revelation from God the Father
c) He gives him the new name of Petros
d) He turns right around and mocks Simon by telling him that he's really ust a pebble, and that He intends to build His Church on a real rock, a big rock, not Peter. And finally
e) after his moment of mocking Simon and his ironic new name, Christ shifts back to praising him, saying, "I give you the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." "
Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction pg 54
Now, look at what Peter's old name, Simon, signfied and compare it to what his new name, Peter, signified.
Simon, according to Strong's, is translated from this Greek word:
G4613Now, let's look at the Hebrew lexicon for the word Shimon:
Σίμων
Simōn
see'-mone
Of Hebrew origin [H8095]; Simon (that is, Shimon), the name of nine Israelites: - Simon. Compare G4826.
H7889DESERT - not just sand, but DESERT . .
שׁימון
shîymôn
shee-mone'
Apparently for H3452; desert; Shimon, an Israelite: - Shimon.
Now, Peter's original name is DESERT, not just grains of sand.
A Desert is not something small, but something LARGE.
What is a desert?
DESERT, n. An uninhabited tract of land; a region in its natural state; a wilderness; a solitude; particularly, a vast sandy plain, as the deserts of Arabia and Africa. But the word may be applied to an uninhabited country covered with wood.We are not talking about something you can hold in your hand or carry, or move . . we are talking about something VERY VERY LARGE .. . whole tracts of land, whole regions, vast areas.
Now, here is Simon, with a name that includes, in its very nature, the idea of vastness, largeness, and if we are to believe those who want to tell us that Petros, Peter's new name, only means a small stone, then we have Jesus taking away one name that means something vast, very, very large, to one that means something very small and insignificant, especially in comparison to what his original name referred to . .
That just doesn't fly.
Whenever God made a name change in the Old Tetament when He BLESSED someone and gave someone somthing, it was from something smaller to something bigger, something less significant to something more significant..
Our God does not change, so why should we consider that He reversed Himself here and changed Peter's name from something VAST and VERY LARGE to something very small and insignificant?
It just doesn't make sense . .
Now, let's look at this further . .
God is not in the habit of making insignificant name changes. So when He blesses Peter, and then bestows on Peter his new name, this is a very significant moment, and we need to recognize this.
God did not bestow on Peter a new INsignificant name . ..
He bestowed on Peter a VERY significant new name.
Peter's original name was Simon which means desert. This is vast place; very significant itself. But it is made of sand which shifts, is unstable, moves about with every wind, being blown about where ever the wind blows it, not suitable for building anything on except what is movable like tents; nothing solid or huge. That has to be built on Rock.
So, here is Simon with a name that means a vast large place of sand, a desert, but not signifying something suitable for building on.
Then here comes Jesus, and Jesus CHANGES his name, not to something insignificant, like a small stone, but to something not only just as significant, but even more so,
ROCK . .a MASSIVE Rock like the massive rock cliff there in Cesarea where Christ spoke those words.
- something better,
- stronger,
- something now extremely stable,
- rock solid and dependable;
- something that does not shift around with the wind,
- something that can hold and support what is to be built on top it . .
For Christ to have changed his name from one that meant something vast to one that meant something very insignificant makes absolutely no sense whatseover, In fact, it would have been insulting, mocking.
Look at it all again . . . That Peter was made the Rock that Jesus would build His Church upon is the only interpretation that makes any sense at all .
Land Owner
This will not satisfy the discussion, but it does address the issue in the OP nicely.
: "Who is permitted to baptize / perform baptisms?"
Answer: The Bible does not specifically address this question. When one looks through the baptisms recorded in the Gospels and the Book of Acts, it would seem that all that was needed was to be a disciple of either Jesus or John the Baptist (in the four Gospels) or to be a godly Christian (in the Book of Acts), a “godly” Christian being one who was sharing the good news of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and His shed blood on the cross. It was as a result of believing this good news that people were then willing or desiring to be baptized.
Here are a few examples of these godly Christians in the Book of Acts: Peter and the apostles baptized large numbers in Acts 2 as they responded to the message about Christ. Later on, Philip, who was at first selected as one to distribute food to widows in the church in Jerusalem, preached the gospel in Samaria and baptized believers there (Acts 6,. Still later, Paul baptized some of those who trusted in Christ in the course of his missionary work, but apparently also let others do the baptizing instead of him (Acts 16:33; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.).
The pivotal passage that answers this question indirectly is found in the “Great Commission” passage (Matthew 28:18-20). This passage records Jesus’ command to make disciples of all nations and includes baptizing as part of the process of making those disciples. If this commission is given to all Christians (as is commonly held), then it follows that the authority to baptize is also given to all Christians.
The Epistles never discuss who is to baptize. What is discussed is the meaning behind baptism. In both the book of Acts and the Epistles, the proper understanding of how one is saved (Acts 19:1-5) and the symbolism involved in baptism (Romans 6) seem to be more important than who is doing the baptism.
Based on Matthew 28:18-20, as well as on the silence of the remaining portions of Scripture concerning this issue, it would seem that any true believer has authority from God to baptize, even as he has the authority from God to evangelize and teach all that Christ commanded.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death , but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Land Owner
Continuing my response to the claims made about about Peter and his position in the Church.
Let's now look at the keys of the kingdom. It was claimed:
"The 'Keys to the Kingdom' is the TRUTH of the Gospel. It is not a right or a position of leadership but the MESSAGE that Jesus is the Messiah. That is the whole of what that scripture was about."If the above statement is correct, it would prove the Catholic claim for Peter as the leader of the Church beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Before anyone stops right there as if such a statement is just too rediculous, I respectfully request they read through this entire post to the end, for all is explained.
If the keys really are, as is contended above, the TRUTH of the Gospel, then we have Jesus promising to Peter and to Peter alone that he would be given that Truth. No one else is included in that promise.
All because of one word: "You"
Jesus is speaking to Peter and to Peter alone. He is saying these words to Peter and to Peter alone.
Jesus gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter and to Peter ALONE.
So, if the keys are indeed the truth of the Gospel, this would have Jesus promising such truth to Peter and to Peter ALONE.
That in and of itself would make Peter the head of the Church as the only one who would receive that truth! - That is, IF that interpretation is correct.
How do we know Jesus was speaking to Peter and to Peter alone?
In English we do not differentiate between singular "you" and the "plural" you, allowing the context to tell us which is intended.
HOWEVER, in the Greek, that is not the case. There is, in Greek, a SINGULAR "you" and a PLURAL "you."
So, the question becomes, which "you" did Jesus use?
The singular or the plural? EVERYTHING here hinges on understanding the answer to that question.
In the underlying Greek, Jesus used the SINGULAR "YOU" when making these promises -Jesus is speaking to Peter and only to Peter - the promises are made to Peter and only to Peter. The rest of the disciples were simply spectators at this point.
What is the evidence Jesus used the singular "you" in the Greek?
The personal pronoun used here when Jesus says
"I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom"is "soi"
Strong's <B>
G4671This is the SINGULAR pronoun:σοί
soi
soy
Dative case of G4771; to thee: - thee, thine own, thou, thy.
Lesson 10: Personal Pronouns and the verb "to be"So we see by the use of the SINGULAR pronoun soi- to you, that the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven were given to Peter and to Peter alone.
Now, to the personal pronouns. They are declined as follows
Second Person (you)
Singularhttp://www.theology.edu/greek/gk10.htm
su- you
sou- of you
soi- to you
se- you
Since the Truth of the Gospel was not given to just one man, but to many, the Keys of the Kingdom CANNOT be refering to the truth of the Gospel as claimed above.
So what are the keys of the kingdom referring to?
That will take another post to explain.
Last edited by Theresej; 05-06-2011 at 01:42 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote