DHK replied, where I last said:
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.
Both of the above churches, to make such a statement, must prove it!
Show me their proofs,, or declare them to be the frauds that they are! And at the same time, try to disprove the claims of the Catholic Church in the face of documentation you cannot deny…unless you are also going to also doubt or deny that the individual buried under a tomb stone with the epitaph of Abraham Lincoln is the same guy so written of!
I last said:
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.
We of course both agree that Matthew recorded what Christ said, ORALLY. So did Mark, Luke and John. But Christ did not use the apostles as a "dictation service," having them gather under an olive tree and write as He spoke! If you believe that, can you find documentation, scripturally or otherwise, that the apostles did exactly that?
Finally, what about the Old Testament, DHK? Is that not what I was talking about in my last above?
DHK then quoted scripture:
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!
Would it not have been better had Christ told Peter, "I will give you the gospel message" instead of the statement "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" if that is what He really meant? Had not Christ been giving them, all of them - all twelve apostles - the "gospel message" all along up to this point? Why is He now singling-out Simon, now called Peter in this awesome exchange in Matthew 16:18-19 if he is simply referring to something He has been doing with all of them up to this point?
Instead, I think I have pointed out the obvious metaphor "keys" represents by referring to Isaiah 22:22, which I will quote here:
"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder, when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts, no one will open"
I get goose bumps when I see this in juxtaposition with "…whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Paraphrased from Matthew 16:19)
Anyway, do you see the obvious metaphor for "authority" that screamingly leaps out at you here? Do you now see the "authority," Christ is giving Peter here? And yes, Christ shares this authority with the other apostles in 18:18, but the reference first to Peter, with him being the "holder of the keys" is the obvious reference to a primacy, Christ is giving him. From here on out, despite the problems Peter still has with his "up front, impetuousness, sticking his nose out, and being rebuked often" problems (a sign of LEADERSHIP!) that we see that Peter is almost always mentioned first in a listing of the apostles, as in "Peter and the others…, etc" and that his name is mentioned far more often then the other apostles, even his being rebuked by Paul in Galatians whereby Paul actually emphasizes Peter's leadership role, rather then diminishes it, else why it is mentioned if Peter were not the leader?
And what did the early fathers think of the primacy of Peter? Here is a sample:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
(Continued in next message)
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.
"Apostolic Church"? What denomination is that? Claiming such does not negate the claims of the original church, especially a church who can prove her history with facts, artifacts and ancient writings, that are as obvious as any documented history.
Again, an obviously Protestant denomination cannot make itself the original church by simply calling itself the "Church of Christ." Can another country on some desert island make the valid claim of being the "United States of America" by a simple declaration?
Both of the above churches, to make such a statement, must prove it!
Show me their proofs,, or declare them to be the frauds that they are! And at the same time, try to disprove the claims of the Catholic Church in the face of documentation you cannot deny…unless you are also going to also doubt or deny that the individual buried under a tomb stone with the epitaph of Abraham Lincoln is the same guy so written of!
The answer is obvious, DHK, documented proof. Documented by both historical extra-scriptural writings of the early church fathers and archaeology, as seen in the catacombs, with the earliest known images of the Mother of Jesus, and epitaphs on ancient Christian tombs that request prayers on behalf of the souls that have left the dust and bones of the departed within. This occurred long before Constantine, the purported "author of Catholicism," was even conceived!
DHK, do me a real big favor and document these "true believers" who existed all this time, other then the Christian community called the Catholic Church. Show me this "competing church" that does not exist, silch nada, nowhere! Between Pentecost and the 16th century, other then the Orthodox schism, there has been only one church! If you don't believe that, then back up your assertion with proof and documentation.
Then explain to me the need for church synods in the latter 3rd century which undertook the job of collating and canonizing and declaring a listing of books, called the New Testament? Why would this have to be done if indeed, this was already done in the 1st century? Also, please document to all of us, exactly how this was done, DHK.
I last said:
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.
Er, ah, DHK, I think it can be safely assumed that Christ ALWAYS "spoke orally."
We of course both agree that Matthew recorded what Christ said, ORALLY. So did Mark, Luke and John. But Christ did not use the apostles as a "dictation service," having them gather under an olive tree and write as He spoke! If you believe that, can you find documentation, scripturally or otherwise, that the apostles did exactly that?
Finally, what about the Old Testament, DHK? Is that not what I was talking about in my last above?
DHK, we both know that Christ taught from the Old Testament! Notice how Christ used that grand old book to indicate that He is the one predicted! When Christ taught from that Old Testament, He then spoke to them what it was saying. And to do so, He spoke! He did not write! It was Luke who recorded what it was that Christ said! When did Luke write this? Did Christ instruct him to do so? We don't know as scripture itself is silent on the matter.
I don't understand your point here, DHK. Reading and searching the scriptures, which is obviously the Old Testament John is speaking of here, is what they were commended to do, but note the words that say this was spoken first, then recorded later by John! The spoken word from the apostles does not become scripture until they are written. And even then, it took a few hundred years before such was declared of them, by the only authority around who could do so - THE CHURCH! (Christ had already ascended to the Father in heaven, and all of the apostles were dead - the end of the apostolic era.)
DHK then quoted scripture:
And I replied:
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!
What makes you think that the "keys" is the "gospel message," DHK?
Would it not have been better had Christ told Peter, "I will give you the gospel message" instead of the statement "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" if that is what He really meant? Had not Christ been giving them, all of them - all twelve apostles - the "gospel message" all along up to this point? Why is He now singling-out Simon, now called Peter in this awesome exchange in Matthew 16:18-19 if he is simply referring to something He has been doing with all of them up to this point?
Instead, I think I have pointed out the obvious metaphor "keys" represents by referring to Isaiah 22:22, which I will quote here:
"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder, when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts, no one will open"
I get goose bumps when I see this in juxtaposition with "…whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Paraphrased from Matthew 16:19)
Anyway, do you see the obvious metaphor for "authority" that screamingly leaps out at you here? Do you now see the "authority," Christ is giving Peter here? And yes, Christ shares this authority with the other apostles in 18:18, but the reference first to Peter, with him being the "holder of the keys" is the obvious reference to a primacy, Christ is giving him. From here on out, despite the problems Peter still has with his "up front, impetuousness, sticking his nose out, and being rebuked often" problems (a sign of LEADERSHIP!) that we see that Peter is almost always mentioned first in a listing of the apostles, as in "Peter and the others…, etc" and that his name is mentioned far more often then the other apostles, even his being rebuked by Paul in Galatians whereby Paul actually emphasizes Peter's leadership role, rather then diminishes it, else why it is mentioned if Peter were not the leader?
And what did the early fathers think of the primacy of Peter? Here is a sample:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
(Continued in next message)
? )