DHK replied, where I previously said (given in italics):
Read carefully, Matthew 16:19....
"Whatsoever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." (parapharased)
Now, I certainly do not see a specific claim here that the Catholic Church is given authority to "change the bible," but authority I do see.
So then, sir, how do you reconcile the fact that the Church, in the 3rd century, not only "wrote" the New Testament (her "Charter clergy" in the apostles) but determined the New Testament? Who gave her the authority to exclude, for example, the following "competing" books that were contemporary in those early apostolic times:
We both agree on who wrote the Old Testament, which, at the shed blood on the cross, became a closed covenant, replaced by the new. Other then the obvious bringing over the original Laws of God in the Ten Commandments, the old covenant laws and regulations are fulfilled, closed, no longer effective, replaced by the new covenant - The gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thus you see my emphasis on the New Testament.
The Old Testament contains the New Testament hidden; (i.e., in it predictions and prophesy)
The New Testament contains the Old Testament revealed. (Paraphrased from memory.)
This is why the Old Testament remains as scripture in our Christian bibles. And from that grand old testament, we still to this day, read of it's prophets and the beautiful psalms. Yet it remains a closed covenant as to the gospel of Christ as he gave it orally to His apostles. In that gospel, the Old testament is fulfilled in the old covenant it reveals. And looking forward in the mission of the Church, the New Testament documents the Church in it's beginning, and continues in it's influence in authority, alongside of the magisterium of the Church who originally declared the authority of the scripture it canonized, that it continues today.
But a guy named John Paul II in Rome has passed to him the "keys of the kingdom" that Peter had, in succession as Bishop of Rome, another topic we can discuss in another thread…
If you were to look at the Matthew 16:19 quote and compare that with Isaiah 22:22, you will see the metaphor of "key" well described, which is the authority that the "keys" in both expressions give. And no, they are not the same "key" in both references - I only refer to the Isaiah quote to indicate the common Jewish understanding the the "key" metaphor as that of authority. Note once again, the "key" metaphor in Matthew 16:19 is not the same key as the Isaiah quote. Yet both are perfect metaphors for authority.
Now, your quote from Luke 11:52 also finds the use of the word "key" as well. (Both my Catholic NAB and NJB has the word as well.) And if we were to continue to claim that this is also a metaphor for authority (which it could be argued that knowledge certainly is), we still have the problem of your assumption that the "key" metaphor here is the same "key" given to Peter! How do you know that?
Does Luke's account come before the events recorded in Matthew 16:19? I attempted to find out, but I don't think it is possible to determine. In any case, If Jesus is called the "cornerstone" that was rejected, does not mean that Peter is the same "rock" Christ names him? See the problem here? Metaphors can be applied to many things and in many ways. If I were to call you the "running steel wall" like I call my grandson, since he is good in knocking over others in defensive football, can I not also call another the same thing without restrictions because I called another the same thing? The "keys" in Matthew 16:19 is not the same "key" in Isaish 22:22 anymore then they are the same "key" in Luke 11:52, yet they are all a metaphoric expression of "authority."
I last said:
Now, take a look at your New Testament and notice the absence of these books! So, my question to you is, if you accept the way your New Testament is, as canonized by the very church you are so suspicious of, then notice the thin ice you stand on when you consider your Bible to be the sole source for your faith, doctrines and moral authority.
The problem is, does this include allof what Paul wrote? Does this also include Peter's own writings, let alone that of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? How about the book of Hebrews, which Paul wrote but was not accepted by some of the regional churches in early times? Likewise for the epistle credited to James? Some rejected John's Book of Revelations, whereas, some wanted the didache included as scripture! (Included in that long list I gave a message or two above.) Further, I am sure that the good bishops who attended the synods of the latter 3rd century took Peter's words here seriously that certainly contributed to including the works of Paul, yet we see at least one of his works questioned.
Therefore, the New Testament was not the generally accepted canon that "came naturally" as you seem to think, but required a central authority to determine. Note further, however, that these local synods that began the process of determining the canon of scripture were not {I]Ecumenical[/I] in that it involved the whole church (as at the Councils of Trent, Rome, Vatican I and more contemporarily, Vatican II.) However, the findings of these early local synods found approval by pope at the time, giving authority to their findings…
In a previous exchange, I said:
Christ, while he was with the apostles in the flesh, did not command the apostles to write a thing!
It says nothing of the kind, sir!
If anything, it reinforces my argument that not only Christ spoke orally, but that the holy Spirit did likewise!
Show me one scrap of scripture to show me where either Christ, or some "words" from the holy Spirit, that commands them to write scripture! Not one whit of such a thing exists, sir!
Now, having said that, I would agree to the assumption that the writing of the New Testament was indeed, a providence of God - that God desired such a thing to be done. But notice how God does this - through the very (gasp!) CHURCH Christ established!
I previously said:
What Christ did was establish a church from which a platform was established therefore the apostles could "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" per Matthew 28:19.
And in the hundreds, they were all a part of THE CHURCH! Not 100 local churches, or even thousands of churches like we see today, each preaching their "own gospel," but many churches in the One Church, in unity, for the first 1500 years after it's "jump start" at Pentecost (not to mention the Orthodox schism in about the 9th century, but a church that still preached the same gospels, doctrines, and recognized the same Seven Sacraments as the Catholic Church does to this very day!)
I previously said:
No, it was not Peter, but it was on Peter the church was established!
"Garbage," you say? If that is the way you feel about it, then perhaps you should cut-out from your bible, Matthew 16:18-19?
JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
By Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess,
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6
It totally and completely destroys all Protestant arguments against the Catholic interpretation that Jesus did indeed, establish His church upon Simon, now called "PETER" which means "ROCK." Pay attention to the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, which has no gender rendering of the word "Rock" (kepha) as does the Greek, therefore, Jesus had to say "…I say to you, you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church…" But even in the Greek rendering the Greek masculine Petros is the same feminine [/I]petras[/I] that means the same thing: Peter is the man Christ builds His church upon!
If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you start a new thread…
I last commented:
Boy, what thin ice you stand on, wanting to pick and choose from scripture what you accept and what you do not accept!
But seriously, I can likewise say, "I trust in Jesus' name." But I also "trust" in His Church, the reason He established it, with the obvious authority He gave to it, and to whom I turn to for doctrines in conflict today.
In 1930, all Protestant churches stood head and shoulders with the Catholic Church in condemning the use of artificial birth control. Today, who stands with her, sir? Not one church! At one time, all churches prohibited a divorce on any grounds (and not to be confused with annulments, which finds that a marriage was null in the first place) but who stands with her today?
You want a "solid rock" to stand on?
I found one in Christ's True Church!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.
He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
- The Apostles Creed -
Read carefully, Matthew 16:19....
"Whatsoever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." (parapharased)
Now, I certainly do not see a specific claim here that the Catholic Church is given authority to "change the bible," but authority I do see.
So then, sir, how do you reconcile the fact that the Church, in the 3rd century, not only "wrote" the New Testament (her "Charter clergy" in the apostles) but determined the New Testament? Who gave her the authority to exclude, for example, the following "competing" books that were contemporary in those early apostolic times:
Was not the apostles the "first clergy" of the church Christ founded? If so, then take it from Pentecost until the very first schism (The Orthodox in about the 9th century) and see if you can identify the "true church" founded if it is not identical to the same church called the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to the apostles and to Jesus Christ. No other church comes close at all, finding their origins from a protester bolting away from the original church Christ founded.1. I believe that you assume too much. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the writing of the New Testament (or any other part of the Bible). The Old Testament were written by prophets, and the New Testament was written by the Apostles (not Catholics).
We both agree on who wrote the Old Testament, which, at the shed blood on the cross, became a closed covenant, replaced by the new. Other then the obvious bringing over the original Laws of God in the Ten Commandments, the old covenant laws and regulations are fulfilled, closed, no longer effective, replaced by the new covenant - The gospel of Jesus Christ.
Thus you see my emphasis on the New Testament.
Let me clarify one thing about the Old Testament: While it is now a closed covenant, she remains as the "grand old testimony" of God's original contact with humanity, through the "chosen people." But please be mindful that what 2 Peter 3:1 is saying, probably best expressed by a saying I recently encountered:2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
The Old Testament contains the New Testament hidden; (i.e., in it predictions and prophesy)
The New Testament contains the Old Testament revealed. (Paraphrased from memory.)
This is why the Old Testament remains as scripture in our Christian bibles. And from that grand old testament, we still to this day, read of it's prophets and the beautiful psalms. Yet it remains a closed covenant as to the gospel of Christ as he gave it orally to His apostles. In that gospel, the Old testament is fulfilled in the old covenant it reveals. And looking forward in the mission of the Church, the New Testament documents the Church in it's beginning, and continues in it's influence in authority, alongside of the magisterium of the Church who originally declared the authority of the scripture it canonized, that it continues today.
Agreed, not knowing the intention of your statement here. But please note that it was only Peter who received the "keys of the kingdom" and was indeed, the first to receive the power to "bind and loose." And while we Catholics see this as ample evidence of the primacy, Jesus gives to Peter, we also note the giving of great authority to the rest of the apostles as well. For example, my local bishop has authority over his diocese, which includes my parish. And if I were to be the "disobedient brother" we see in the verses the precede Matthew 18:18, and the matter is "taken to the church," my bishop can exercise his authority against me!Jude 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
The authority given to Peter in Mat.16:19 is given to all the Apostles in Mat.18:18, and that is in the context of church discipline. The keys refer to the keys of knowledge, or the knowledge of the gospel. Compare Scripture with Scripture.
But a guy named John Paul II in Rome has passed to him the "keys of the kingdom" that Peter had, in succession as Bishop of Rome, another topic we can discuss in another thread…

First of all, I see you suffer the same affliction as other bible exegetes do, the misuse of metaphors.(Luke 11:52 KJV) Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Here is what the Pharisees and lawyers had done. They had taken away that knowledge that was necessary for salvation from the people. Jesus refers to that knowledge as the "Key of knowledge." This is the same key that Jesus was referring to in Matthew when He was speaking to Peter and the apostles. If they accepted the gospel message their sins were forgiven; if they rejected the gospel message their sins were not forgiven.
There is no apostolic succession. There was no universal "church." In the third century there were many Bible believing churches that had the Scriptures to guide them. They didn't need a pope. The church at Rome was small compared to the church at Antioch. Except for Peter's death, no proof can be offered that Peter was even in Rome.
If you were to look at the Matthew 16:19 quote and compare that with Isaiah 22:22, you will see the metaphor of "key" well described, which is the authority that the "keys" in both expressions give. And no, they are not the same "key" in both references - I only refer to the Isaiah quote to indicate the common Jewish understanding the the "key" metaphor as that of authority. Note once again, the "key" metaphor in Matthew 16:19 is not the same key as the Isaiah quote. Yet both are perfect metaphors for authority.
Now, your quote from Luke 11:52 also finds the use of the word "key" as well. (Both my Catholic NAB and NJB has the word as well.) And if we were to continue to claim that this is also a metaphor for authority (which it could be argued that knowledge certainly is), we still have the problem of your assumption that the "key" metaphor here is the same "key" given to Peter! How do you know that?
Does Luke's account come before the events recorded in Matthew 16:19? I attempted to find out, but I don't think it is possible to determine. In any case, If Jesus is called the "cornerstone" that was rejected, does not mean that Peter is the same "rock" Christ names him? See the problem here? Metaphors can be applied to many things and in many ways. If I were to call you the "running steel wall" like I call my grandson, since he is good in knocking over others in defensive football, can I not also call another the same thing without restrictions because I called another the same thing? The "keys" in Matthew 16:19 is not the same "key" in Isaish 22:22 anymore then they are the same "key" in Luke 11:52, yet they are all a metaphoric expression of "authority."
I last said:
Now, take a look at your New Testament and notice the absence of these books! So, my question to you is, if you accept the way your New Testament is, as canonized by the very church you are so suspicious of, then notice the thin ice you stand on when you consider your Bible to be the sole source for your faith, doctrines and moral authority.
This is the closest thing you will get to having "scripture prove scripture."Your assumption is that the Catholic Church canonized the Scriptures. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Apostles wrote the Scripture, identified the Scripture, passed on to the early believers the knowledge of which Scripture was inspired and which was not. Look again:
2Pet.3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Peter acknowledges Paul's epistles as inspired Scripture. Not only that he seems to know which of his epistles are inspired and which are not. He also refers to "other Scriptures," speaking of other New Testament Scriptures. The Apostles knew which books were inspired and which were not. As a book was written, it may have been accepted by the apostolic community shortly after it was written as inspired or canonical. This was definitely true concerning Paul's epistles. Peter acknowledges them as such. By the end of the first century the canon was completed, not by the Catholic Church, but by the early believers that sat under the teaching of the apostles. This can be verified in other early translations of the New Testament. For the Catholic Church to take credit for canonization of the Scripture is just wishful thinking. Do you take credit for Origen's Arianism, and Augustine's hyper-calvinism as well?
The problem is, does this include allof what Paul wrote? Does this also include Peter's own writings, let alone that of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? How about the book of Hebrews, which Paul wrote but was not accepted by some of the regional churches in early times? Likewise for the epistle credited to James? Some rejected John's Book of Revelations, whereas, some wanted the didache included as scripture! (Included in that long list I gave a message or two above.) Further, I am sure that the good bishops who attended the synods of the latter 3rd century took Peter's words here seriously that certainly contributed to including the works of Paul, yet we see at least one of his works questioned.
Therefore, the New Testament was not the generally accepted canon that "came naturally" as you seem to think, but required a central authority to determine. Note further, however, that these local synods that began the process of determining the canon of scripture were not {I]Ecumenical[/I] in that it involved the whole church (as at the Councils of Trent, Rome, Vatican I and more contemporarily, Vatican II.) However, the findings of these early local synods found approval by pope at the time, giving authority to their findings…
In a previous exchange, I said:
Christ, while he was with the apostles in the flesh, did not command the apostles to write a thing!
Whew! A very interesting example of eisegesis if I have ever see one!I beg to differ with you.
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
--Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth. I believe this has to do with the writing of the Scriptures.
It says nothing of the kind, sir!
If anything, it reinforces my argument that not only Christ spoke orally, but that the holy Spirit did likewise!
Show me one scrap of scripture to show me where either Christ, or some "words" from the holy Spirit, that commands them to write scripture! Not one whit of such a thing exists, sir!
Now, having said that, I would agree to the assumption that the writing of the New Testament was indeed, a providence of God - that God desired such a thing to be done. But notice how God does this - through the very (gasp!) CHURCH Christ established!

I previously said:
What Christ did was establish a church from which a platform was established therefore the apostles could "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" per Matthew 28:19.
One hundred local/regional churches who all preached, taught and proclaimed the same gospel!What Christ commanded was to go into all the world, preach the gospel, baptize believers, teach them again. Paul was an example of this, and on three missionary journeys he did not establish a church but over one hundred churches.
And in the hundreds, they were all a part of THE CHURCH! Not 100 local churches, or even thousands of churches like we see today, each preaching their "own gospel," but many churches in the One Church, in unity, for the first 1500 years after it's "jump start" at Pentecost (not to mention the Orthodox schism in about the 9th century, but a church that still preached the same gospels, doctrines, and recognized the same Seven Sacraments as the Catholic Church does to this very day!)
I previously said:
No, it was not Peter, but it was on Peter the church was established!
"Garbage," you say? If that is the way you feel about it, then perhaps you should cut-out from your bible, Matthew 16:18-19?
(SIGH!) How many times have I discussed this in this forum? Shall I start over again and do my thing once more? Get the book:Peter was but a stone; Christ is the rock that is spoken of here. All throughout Scripture "The Lord is our rock and salvation." He is the chief cornerstone." "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Christ is always the ROCK, never Peter.
JESUS, PETER & THE KEYS
By Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess,
ISBN: 1-882972-54-6
It totally and completely destroys all Protestant arguments against the Catholic interpretation that Jesus did indeed, establish His church upon Simon, now called "PETER" which means "ROCK." Pay attention to the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, which has no gender rendering of the word "Rock" (kepha) as does the Greek, therefore, Jesus had to say "…I say to you, you are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church…" But even in the Greek rendering the Greek masculine Petros is the same feminine [/I]petras[/I] that means the same thing: Peter is the man Christ builds His church upon!
If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you start a new thread…
I last commented:
Boy, what thin ice you stand on, wanting to pick and choose from scripture what you accept and what you do not accept!
Thank you for the quaint poem, and I don't want to offend you, DHK, but it is the sound of desperation that only comes from the poor guy, standing on a limb, and using a chain saw, he cuts off the limb between himself and the main trunk!My hope is built on nothing less,
Than Jesus blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus name.
On Christ the solid Rock I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand!
All other ground is sinking sand!

But seriously, I can likewise say, "I trust in Jesus' name." But I also "trust" in His Church, the reason He established it, with the obvious authority He gave to it, and to whom I turn to for doctrines in conflict today.
In 1930, all Protestant churches stood head and shoulders with the Catholic Church in condemning the use of artificial birth control. Today, who stands with her, sir? Not one church! At one time, all churches prohibited a divorce on any grounds (and not to be confused with annulments, which finds that a marriage was null in the first place) but who stands with her today?
You want a "solid rock" to stand on?
I found one in Christ's True Church!

God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.
He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
- The Apostles Creed -