Divisions

[Taken]

Having been employed as a researcher, so I am versed in the correct methodology at getting at the truth.

If one person says this, I note it. If two say the same thing I note it. If three say the same thing I note it. If a hundred say the same thing I note I am getting a trend. If 1,000 say the say thing I am getting concrete evidence.

I have yet to meet a Catholic on the three continents I have lived on say that you don't have to earn your salvation. ergo.

Agree.

IMO...Catholics have a bit of a different approach to teaching.
That being; Catechism.
Basically the teaching of Interpretation "then" referencing a scripture, (often not parallel to their "interpretation")
Backwards, and not what Scripture teaches.

Scripture teaches to Believe, Trust, and Speak the Word of God, to those willing to hear.
Scripture teaches the "understanding" (interpretation), of the Word of God...
...is given men BY the Lord God Himself.

In brief ~

2 Tim 2
[7] Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

The Reasonable SERVICE of a man is to BELIEVE, and heartfully CONFESS, effecting A Conversion; effecting the man to BE, "Baptized WITH the Holy Spirit", effecting the Spirit of God to BE "IN" the man, and the man "IN" Christ.

Rom 12
[1] I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Thereafter WORKS such a man DOES...
THAT....Gorifies God...

Such Works shall be rewarded, BY God.

Matt 5
[16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Matt 6
[19] Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth,where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
[20] But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Matt 5
[12] Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven:

1 Cor 9
[16] For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
[17] For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
[18] What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

1 Cor 3:
[13] Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
[14] If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.


Good Works can Only be accomplished by the SEALED "IN" God.

Good Works glorify God.

Good Works are rewarded "BY" God

Non-good works are BURNED, regardless of WHOSE works they are.

Rev 22:
[12] And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes @BreadOfLife, revelation, and you have none. you should go back to school you need some schooling as you put it..

???
What are you talking about??

If you're going to respond to one of my posts - at least have the courage to refer to the post . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am well aware your church has appointed your pope, the INFALLIBLE school MASTER, and you being a member of "your church" have appointed yourself, the infallible school teacher according to your INFALLIBLE MASTER..."your pope, your holy father".

You have failed to notice, not everyone has agreed to be "your student", in agreement with "you" or "your holy father; your pope"!

Isa.51
[1] Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
[2] Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

Men build "buildings", of stone and rock, dedicated unto God.

The "buildings" men build, BECAME "corrupt", and "continue" to BECOME "corrupt"...by the very men "who" are appointed "head master of the buildings".

Jesus "foretold" the buildings would be destroyed; and then one building was an example; being destroyed before the eyes of the people.

God "foretold" HIS PEOPLE, would be out from the "stock children" of ABRAHAM, and Abraham their Promised "earthly father".
(Yet even when all of Abrahams "stock children" are Planted, to ALSO, be a son of God, they shall reject the offer, and wither away as rubble.)

Scripture "foretold" Jesus would BUILD HIS Church, UPON:
Belief:
in God, in Jesus is the Christ and Son of God.
Faith:
(Gifted to men who so Belief
Heartfelt Confession:
of the believers.

Jesus is the ROCK and ESTABLISHED Cornerstone of HIS CHURCH

THOSE men ^ Believers, Fathiful, Confessors;

Become;
The stones upon stone; becoming established members of Christ Jesus' Church, BY and Through the POWER of the "indwelling" Holy Spirit.
(Peter, John, and all (but one) of Jesus' Appointed disciples, and many others who joined in being disciples OF JESUS, are all stones, one upon another, becoming; JESUS' Established CHURCH)

Become; ALSO,
Forgiven their sins, Freed from sin, Sin no more, sealed and established forever a son of God, BY and Through the POWER of the "indwelling" Holy Spirit.

Become; ALSO,
Promised "sons of ABRAHAM", appointed to "inherit" Abraham's "promised land"....
WHICH shall be the SAME LAND;
WHERE:
Jesus' Earthly Kingdom's THRONE and head KING (Jesus) government of the WORLD, shall be situated.

Catholics APPOINT a succession of random men their "earthly holy father".
God did no such thing.
Jesus did no such thing.

All men WHO accept God as their "Holy Father", become "holy sons of God"..
and by Promise, become:
"earthly Faithful sons of man; Faithful Abraham".

Jesus is MANKINDS Example, MY Teacher.

Jesus is the "Faithful earthly Son of Man";
"Faithful Abraham"

Jesus is the "Holy Son of God";
"God Almighty"

And EVERY Man; Jew or Gentile; who follows Jesus' Example; Jesus' Teaching;
Becomes the same;
...sons of man; Faithful Abraham
...sons of God; holy sons

Catholics make very clear, their teachings, who they follow and who is their "holy father"

And Still, I disagree with you and your church's teaching.

In your usual verbose, ranting style - you completely skipped over the fact that I schooled you on - namely:
- That Peter is NOT the only other person referred to as "The Rock" besides Jesus in Scripture.
- Abraham is ALSO referred to as "The Rock" in Scripture.

Neither Peter nor Abraham is referred to as the "cornerstone" - but BOTH of them are clearly referred to as "The Rock".

Here are some of your fellow PROTESTANT scholars on the matter - who all AGREE on this point:

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19
- "The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

- "When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

- "The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.


- "The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

- "The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

- "Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

- "Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which--in accordance with the words of the text--applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

- "By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

- ". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

- "The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros) and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 (cont'd)
- "The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975), 125.

- "'You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 345.

- "Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, 'I will build,' would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed at himself involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

- "Another interpretation is that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage." --Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament, Robert Fraw, ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 170.

- "It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

- "Some interpreters have therefore referred to Jesus as rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the Rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-Varsity Press], 837.

- "There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]; indeed refer to Peter." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

- "The word-play and the whole structure of the passage demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as vs. 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter's confession that Jesus declares his role as the church's foundation, but it is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

- "The frequent attempts that have been made, larely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock (e.g., most recently Caragounis) seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy." --Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 14-28," in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

- "The meaning is, 'You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.' Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, 'And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.'" --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition on the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

- "'You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church (mou ten ekklesian).' These words are spoken in Aramaic, in which Cephas stands both for Petros and petra." --Veselin Kesich, "Peter's Primacy in the New Testament and the Early Tradition," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), 47-48.

- "In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

- "The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'), since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

- "'And upon this rock'--As 'Peter' and 'rock' are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country--this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. Even in the Greek it is imperfectly represented. in French, as Webster and Wilkinson remark, it is perfect, Pierre-pierre." --Robert Jamieson, Andrew Robert Fausset, and David Brown, One Volume Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Associated Publishers, n.d. [197?]), 47-48.

- "The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John 1:42; comp. 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; Gal 2:9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. Hence the old Syriac translation of the N.T. renders the passage in question thus: 'Anath-her Kipha, v' all hode Kipha.' The Arabic translation has alsachra in both cases. The proper translation then would be: 'Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,' etc." --John Peter Lange, trans. Philip Schaff, Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.

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

- "Edersh. finds the words petros and petra borrowed in the late Rabbinical language, and things that Jesus, while speaking Aramaic, may have borrowed those Greek words here. But this is grossly improbable, and the suggestion looks like a desperate expedient; nor has he shown that the late Rabbis themselves make the supposed distinction between the two words." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 356.

- "Furthermore, the whole passage contains semitic structures. In Aramaic the word for both Peter's name and the rock would be identical, Kepha' . . . kepha'." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess,Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 21.

- "PETER (Gr. Petros). Simon Peter, the most prominent of Jesus' twelve disciples. Peter's original name was Simon (Aram. sim'on, represented in Greek by Simon and Symeon). Jesus gave him the Aramaic name kepha "rock" (Matt. 16:18); Luke 6:14 par.; John 1:42), which is in Greek both transliterated (Kephas; Eng. Cephas) and translated (Petros)." --Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 818.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 (cont'd)

- "The play on words in [Mat 16] verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage." --Suzanne de Dietrich, The Layman's Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, trans. Donald G. Miller, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.

- "On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition." --David Hill, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.

- "The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would be occur in both places) . . . ." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

- "The natural reading of the passage [Mat 16:18], despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built (thus rightly Morris, France, Carson, Blomberg, Cullman [Peter, 207], Davies-Allison; so too the interconfessional volume by Brown, Donfried, and Reumann [Peter in the NT, 92])." --Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, in David A. Hubbard and others, eds., World Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.

- "The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux (Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961], 129 ff.) rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel." --W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

- "For the same reason, Christ calls the office of teaching the word, (Mat 16:19) 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven'; so that it is idle and foolish to spend much time in endeavouring to find a hidden reason, when the matter is plain, and needs no ingenuity." --John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, vol. 2, trans. William Pringle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 136-137.

- "The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church (which is not what the kingdom of heaven means; see pp. 45-47) but an authority derived from a delegation of God's sovereignty." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 256.

- "The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1,8 ) here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

- "The keys of the kingdom would be comitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority." --George Buttrick and others, eds., The Interpreter's Bible, (New York: Abingdon, 1951), 453.

- "The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys." --S. T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1987), 256.

- "What do the expressions 'bind' and 'loose' signify? According to Rabbinical usage two explanations are equally possible: 'prohibit' and 'permit', that is, 'establish rules'; or 'put under the ban' and 'acquit.'" --Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 204-205.

- "These terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements [i.e., relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on the people of God. In that case, Peter's 'power of the keys' declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, but that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

- "In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God." --Ralph Earle, "Matthew," in A. F. Harper and others, eds.,Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansis City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.

- "This verse [Mat 16:19] therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

- "Hence handing over the keys implies appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side contol, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.
-
**Particularly note-worthy are the words of Martin Luther in his tract called "The Keys," which he wrote 9 years after his excommunication:
o "So we stand there and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Mat. 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. He does not say he has two kinds of keys, but he gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others." --Martin Luther, "The Keys," in Conrad Bergendoff, ed., trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luther's Works, vol. 40, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958), 365-366.

- "Isaiah 22:15 ff. udoubtedly lies behind this [Mat 16:19] saying." --W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

- "And what about the 'keys of the kingdom'? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." --F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.

- "The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church." --M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

- "The keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a household servant could hold (Mark 13:32-34). A higher official held the keys in a royal kingdom (Is 22:22) and in God's house, the temple." --Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

- "'The keys of the kingdom of heaven: the phrase [from Mat 16:19] is almost certainly based on Is. 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority transferred to him." --D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Intervarsity Press], 837.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19 (cont'd)

- "The master of the palace had similar functions at the court of Judah. Announcing the promotion of Elyaqim, Isaiah 22:22 says: 'I lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, if he opens, none will shut; if he shuts, none will open.' The Egyptian vizier's instructions are described in a very similar fashion. Every morning 'the vizier will send someone to open the gates of the kings house, to admit those who have to enter, and to send out those who have to go out.' One is reminded of the Lord's words to Peter, the Vizier of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16:19)." --Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 130.

- "In Isa 22:22 the key of the house of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11), and in Rev 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage [Matthew 16:19] Peter is made the foundation (cf. Eph 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys." --George Buttrick and others, eds.,The Interpreter's Bible, (New York: Abingdom, 1951), 453.

- "In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house." --Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.

- "Materially, then, the keys of the kingdom of God are not different from the key of David. This is confirmed by the fact that in Mt. 16:19, as in Rev. 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls them." --J. Jeremias, "Kleis," in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

- R. T. France, in his commentary on Mat. 16:19 says that Isaiah 22:22 is "generally regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys here. . . ." --R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

 

[Taken]

BreadOfLife ~

BOL....LOL

3 pages of mens opinions....whoop whoop.

Try the Scriptural truth.

God is The ROCK.

Jesus is The ROCK.

All Converted men in Christ are "stones", upon Christ's Spiritual House.

You want to rant on and on, and dictate which earthly man is greater, and exalt depictions of men in statues, and carry on with ceremonies around your statues (ie your golden calves)...
That's you. Not me.

Thee Lord God Almighty, THEE True Holy Father and His promised earthly father are sufficient for me.

So, be off with you and your pocket full of opinions, pfft, shoo, not interested in your blathering.

 

[Taken]

DIVISIONS <----> OP

Divisions among men, Yes.
Divisions among men and God, Yes.
Divisions among men and Christ, Yes.

Separations of the Divided coming soon, Yes.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[mjrhealth]

???
What are you talking about??

If you're going to respond to one of my posts - at least have the courage to refer to the post . . .

Oh you mean that silly one about Peter and the rock thingy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh you mean that silly one about Peter and the rock thingy.

Yup - that's about the extent of the grasp YOU have on the matter . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife ~

BOL....LOL

3 pages of mens opinions....whoop whoop.

Try the Scriptural truth.
God is The ROCK.
Jesus is The ROCK.
All Converted men in Christ are "stones", upon Christ's Spiritual House.
You want to rant on and on, and dictate which earthly man is greater, and exalt depictions of men in statues, and carry on with ceremonies around your statues (ie your golden calves)...
That's you. Not me.
Thee Lord God Almighty, THEE True Holy Father and His promised earthly father are sufficient for me.

So, be off with you and your pocket full of opinions, pfft, shoo, not interested in your blathering.

No - 4 pages of Protestant scholarship.

However - you are right about
God being the Rock
Jesus being the Rock
ALL Christians being living stones.

BUT - you left out Abraham being "The Rock" (Isa. 51:1).
Peter being "The Rock" (Matt. 16:18).

Don't just accept PART of Scripture while throwing out the rest.
Eisther you believe ALL of it - or you believe NONE of it . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

No - 4 pages of Protestant scholarship.

However - you are right about
God being the Rock
Jesus being the Rock
ALL Christians being living stones.

BUT - you left out Abraham being "The Rock" (Isa. 51:1).
Peter being "The Rock" (Matt. 16:18).

Don't just accept PART of Scripture while throwing out the rest.
Eisther you believe ALL of it - or you believe NONE of it . . .

Burt in that Case, revelation is the rock, so BOL see I just schooled you. Feel so much better now...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Burt in that Case, revelation is the rock, so BOL see I just schooled you. Feel so much better now...

Nope, Peter is the Rock - and I posted about 5 dozen of your Protestant scholars who explain why in posts 183, 184, 185 and 186.

They figured it out - maybe YOU will too . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Nope, Peter is the Rock - and I posted about 5 dozen of your Protestant scholars who explain why in posts 183, 184, 185 and 186.

They figured it out - maybe YOU will too . . .

You are the greatest protestant of all, always protesting against the truth, Congratulations you get first prize.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are the greatest protestant of all, always protesting against the truth, Congratulations you get first prize.

No - a Protestant is one who rejects Christ's Church and creates his OWN version or joins another.
Kinda like YOU with your sex-and-gun cult, "aggressivechristianity.net" . . .

The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - and continues to splinter to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that the Holy Spirit "led" them there.

What a man-made mess . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

No - a Protestant is one who rejects Christ's Church and creates his OWN version or joins another.
Kinda like YOU with your sex-and-gun cult, "aggressivechristianity.net" . . .

The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - and continues to splinter to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that the Holy Spirit "led" them there.

What a man-made mess . . .

You BOL rejected it when you became a catholic this part

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You BOL rejected it when you became a catholic this part

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Nonsense, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend.
Christ's Church was Catholic from the beginning . . .

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

According to Strong’s Greek Concordance – which is used by Protestants AND Catholics alike – the verse is translated as:
“The true Church throughout all Judea . . .”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"Ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Just put the apostate Catholic on ignore.

 

[mjrhealth]

Nonsense, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend.
Christ's Church was Catholic from the beginning . . .

Acts 9:31 talks about how the Early Church grew throughout the region. The language used here describes the Catholic Church:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

According to Strong’s Greek Concordance – which is used by Protestants AND Catholics alike – the verse is translated as:
“The true Church throughout all Judea . . .”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"Ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Yes even the devil can twist scripture, and he has many children. But your church is your god and you wont leave just like the SDA whose church is there god and they wont leave

 

[tabletalk]

No - a Protestant is one who rejects Christ's Church and creates his OWN version or joins another.
Kinda like YOU with your sex-and-gun cult, "aggressivechristianity.net" . . .

The Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered - and continues to splinter to the tune of tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects that ALL teach different doctrines yet ALL claim that the Holy Spirit "led" them there.

What a man-made mess . . .

Did the Orthodox church 'splinter' also? But they're not Protestant, right? Are they a 'man-made mess'?
They claim to be the 'Original Tree' also, and I don't think they even allow a Catholic to partake of their Eucharist. Can your Churches both be the 'Original Tree' ?