The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven

[Alanforchrist]

[font=lucida sans unicode']In Aramaic, a small stone is "Evna." Christ did not say to Peter, "You are Evna and on this Cephas I will build my Church." Peter's name is "Cephas".....which is the same as "Rock". [/font]

Peter's name, [Cephas] Means "A stone" See Jn 1: 42, Or is God telling lies.


I gues you didn't read my post.
Here it is again.

Greek, Peter, [A stone].
Aramaic, Peter, [A stone]
KJV, Peter, [ A stone] Jn 1: 42.

Peter, Petros, [Greek].
Cephes, [Aramaic]
A small stone that is easily moved or shaken.

The Rock that Jesus built His Church on.
Greek, [Petra].
Aramaic, [Shu'a]
KJV, [Rock.

There is absolutely no way Jesus could have build His Church on Peter.


The Bible makes it clear enough to everyone accept the catholics, That Peter means, "A Stone", Jn 1: 42.

 

[Selene]

This is Strong's biblical translation of Petra, and the weblink is provided below:

petra
[background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]
Pronunciation [/background]

pe'-trä (Key)

[background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]
Part of Speech [/background]

feminine noun
[background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]
Root Word (Etymology) [/background]​

From the same as Πέτρος (G4074)​

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G4073&t=KJV

Now, let us click on the Root Word of Petra and this is what it says, and again the weblink is provided. And this is from the KJV:

[font=trebuchet ms'][background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]trong's G4074 - Petros[/background][/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']Πέτρος[/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']
[background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]
Transliteration [/background]

Petros
[background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]
Pronunciation [/background]

pe'-tros (Key)

[background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]
Part of Speech [/background]

proper masculine noun
[background=rgb(0, 105, 179)]
Root Word (Etymology) [/background] [/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']
Apparently a primary word [/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']
[/font]


http://www.bluelette...ngs=G4074&t=KJV

The root word of "Petra" (Rock) is Petros. The only difference is the gender.

 

[Alanforchrist]

This is Strong's biblical translation of Petra, and the weblink is provided below:

petra
[background=rgb(0,105,179)]
Pronunciation [/background]

pe'-trä (Key)

[background=rgb(0,105,179)]
Part of Speech [/background]

feminine noun
[background=rgb(0,105,179)]
Root Word (Etymology) [/background]​

From the same as Πέτρος (G4074)​

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G4073&t=KJV

Now, let us click on the Root Word of Petra and this is what it says, and again the weblink is provided. And this is from the KJV:

[font=trebuchet ms'][background=rgb(0,105,179)]trong's G4074 - Petros[/background][/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']Πέτρος[/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']
[background=rgb(0,105,179)]
Transliteration [/background]

Petros
[background=rgb(0,105,179)]
Pronunciation [/background]

pe'-tros (Key)

[background=rgb(0,105,179)]
Part of Speech [/background]

proper masculine noun
[background=rgb(0,105,179)]
Root Word (Etymology) [/background] [/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']
Apparently a primary word [/font]​

[font=trebuchet ms']
[/font]


http://www.bluelette...ngs=G4074&t=KJV

The root word of "Petra" (Rock) is Petros. The only difference is the gender.

You must be a catholic, They twist the scriptures and the Greek.

I noticed you left out Strongs meaning for Petros, "A stone".
Also the Aramaic meaning is, "A Stone", See Jn 1: 42.


I gues you didn't read my post.
Here it is again. This time read it and believe it.

Greek, Peter, [A stone].
Aramaic, Peter, [A stone]
KJV, Peter, [ A stone] Jn 1: 42.

Peter, Petros, [Greek].
Cephes, [Aramaic]
A small stone that is easily moved or shaken.

The Rock that Jesus built His Church on.
Greek, [Petra].
Aramaic, [Shu'a]
KJV, [Rock.

There is absolutely no way Jesus could have build His Church on Peter.


The Bible makes it clear enough to everyone accept the catholics, That Peter means, "A Stone", Jn 1: 42.

 

[MTPockets]

Philip asked the eunuch: "Do you understand what you are reading?"
The dispensation of shadows, the predictions of the old prophets, the ceremonies and laws of the Old Covenant can only be understood if we use the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. Then we see the meaning of the tabernacle, Aaron's priesthood and the offerings, of earthly Jerusalem and Mount Zion, of the natural people of Israel and the nations living around the people of the Old Covenant. Being under the cloud, going through the Red Sea, the manna from heaven and the water from the rock, the people Is idolatry in the desert, their worship of a calf, their adultery, the whole history of Israel was written as an example for us, (1Cor 10:11).

If we wish to grasp their full meaning, we have to move the Scriptures of the Old covenant to the heavenly places, We have to "spiritualize" them. The same principle applies to the explanation of the parables which Jesus without further explanation left behind. In our days people say: "Read what it says, believe what it says, and you will receive what it says". This is typical of a natural or unspiritual Christian. By doing so, the door of the Kingdom of heaven is shut.

The crowd to which Jesus spoke was unable to transpose the parables. No one had taught them to think spiritually. About the responsible leaders of his day Jesus drew the terrible conclusion: "But woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the Kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in", (Matt 23:13). These leaders were themselves spiritually blind and deaf and their minds were only attuned to the things of the earth. They kept the crowd at this level as well, making them unable to gather knowledge of the heavenly places.

For him who uses the keys of the heavenly Kingdom it says: "For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away" (Matt 13:12). There is no ceiling for the way of thinking of those who accept the principle of Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom of heaven. Through the renewal of the mind man ascends and moves into the spiritual reality. He learns to understand the unseen things by means of parables and images from the visible world. God's laws and purposes for the unseen world can be understood by means of the natural creation.

The bible says about Jesus: "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1Cor 15:45). His sermons called man's spirit to move into the Kingdom of heaven. Therefore the doctrine of Jesus produces spiritual people. Those who reject this basic principle and accept the fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the scribes and lawyers, will eventually have a religion limited to the visible world, just as they had. God, however, seeks worshippers in spirit and in truth!

Many Christians are so completely wrapped up in natural religion that they finally lose all forms of spiritual thinking, for "What he has will be taken away". About those who do not grow up in the spiritual world but keep occupying their minds with natural things the bible says: "Know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death" (Rev 3:1-2).

The crowds in Jesus' day were unable to grasp the meaning of the parables; they had not learned to attune the mind to the spiritual world. Of course the majority of the listeners understood the stories but were unable to project the parables onto a higher level. Isaiah 55:9 says about the unspiritual or natural man: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts". The unspiritual man thinks in the natural world only, but God's thoughts also move in another sphere.

"Man (natural man, that is) looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart", (1Sam. 16:7). He counts with the unseen, inner man who belongs to the world of the spirits. In verses Matt 13:13-15 we read: "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: You shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people Is heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn for Me to heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear".

When the Lord promised his followers to give them the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, this also includes the spiritual senses enabling them to gather knowledge in that Kingdom. They receive open eyes and hearing ears to orientate themselves, and the hand of faith to appropriate the spiritual reality. The result is that this insight into the unseen world causes a complete change in the structure of the thoughts. From that moment onward they work with different principles. From the basic truths of the Kingdom of heaven the thoughts soar upwards, and every situation is seen differently and more clearly than before: we have begun to understand the causes and the substance of things and we lift ourselves up above them. If these keys are lacking in a person's life he will find that, in our days of increasing spiritual darkness and demon activity, he is at a great disadvantage, and even the things he thought he had will be taken away from him.

The Lord said that the Scribes and Pharisees were deaf and blind. They also lacked the hand of faith to accept the doctrine of Jesus. They also hid the keys of knowledge from the crowds (Luke 11:52). Their way of teaching was such that the people were unable to obtain any knowledge of the heavenly places. They themselves were unable to enter into the kingdom of heaven, and those who tried to enter they hindered by warning against Jesus' words.

Jesus' parables about the Kingdom of heaven can be compared with the pillar of cloud and of fire; its dark side turned towards the Egyptians but the light side towards the people of the Old Covenant. They can also be compared with a fruit which has an exquisite kernel. One is satisfied with looking at the beautiful outside, while others seek the precious kernel which hides new life. When the Lord explained the parables to his disciples, this actually amounted to the opening of their spiritual eyes, that is, the opening of their minds, enabling them to see the spiritual meaning. Their ears were 'blessed' because they heard the explanations, and their eyes because they received a new vision. They were experiencing the keys of the kingdom!

 

[Axehead]

The Scriptures and major events are eyewitness-approved.

I think it is significant that Jesus and the Apostles did nothing in secret. Jesus preached the good news of the Kingdom of God completely in the open. No secret meetings, no clandestine committees. He preached to the public; the religious and non-religious, military and non-military, political and non-political alike. The Apostles also preached the Gospel in the open. There were thousands upon thousands of people that saw and heard Jesus Christ and His disciples.

Does your Bible say that "great multitudes followed Him", "multitudes gathered". We do believe that God meant what He had men write in the Bible, don't we?

Matt_4:25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

Matt_5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

John_6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

There are 31 occurrences of the multitudes following Jesus are gathering around Him in Matthew, 16 in Mark, 14 in Luke and John_6:2. That is a total of 67 times in the Gospels were we see hundreds if not thousands of people saw Jesus' manner of life and what He did and who He spent His time with. They observed where He went what He said and even how He was betrayed. Judas himself brought a "multitude" and the guard (Matt_26:47). Jesus was openly tried and condemned (Matt_27:20) and many out at Golgotha saw Jesus die.

Then we have Jesus's resurrection where he was seen by "500 brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." (1 Cor_15:6)

Anyone in the multitude could tell you whether or not Jesus' was married. They should know, they were there.

Why is the New Testament more than enough for us? Because the New Testament was written when there were crowds of witnesses still alive and this prevented the Apostles and others from making stuff up. It was not until after the Apostles and other NT writers died, after all the witnesses died, that extra-biblical writings are being discovered which clearly contradict the New Testament. That is when "stuff" was made up. After the eyewitnesses died. And thus, the revision and rewriting of history began. Pagan and Apocryphal writings were written over 100 years later and no one was alive to say it wasn't so. That is why it is best not to accept any "gospels" or "epistles" that were not corroborated by any eyewitnesses.

Why do we care about what anyone wrote who wasn't there in the 1st century with the Apostles? We already have the inspired witness of those who were there. Poor Peter and Mary have had "violence" done to their reputation by religion, yet they are exonerated by the Spirit of truth. In all of the New Testament, where Christianity (The Way) was extremely public and visible, there is absolutely no mention of Peter going to Rome or of Peter being the Pope of Rome. While he was alive and these things happened, is exactly when there should be writings in the NT about him. Yet, there is no mention of these things happening to Peter. Allegedly, his bones were found in 1951. There is also, absolutely no mention of Believers coming to Mary for intercession on their behalf to her son. After Pentecost, we never hear about Mary, again.

This is why the Old and New Testament are enough. What God gave us is enough! Why, it's more than enough. But apparently to some people, the OT and NT are not nearly enough. So, out come all the extra writings. Down through the ages, we are being graced with new revelation about "what really took place" in the early church. I submit to you that the writing of events in the NT are trustworthy because they were witnessed by hundreds if not thousands of people and yet no extra-biblical writings (that people put on the same level of authority as the Scriptures), have the witness of the early church and the Apostles. If today's extra-biblical writings had the witness of the Apostles and other early church writers of the NT, then they would be in the NT.

But they are not in the New Testament and the only way to get people to accept "other" writings are to invent "oral tradition" and succeeding Apostleship. Then you can add all you want to add to the New Testament, even if it is contradictory. Because, you can always say that some things in the Scriptures are hard to understand and that is why people don't understand. What they need is to turn their mind off and just listen to the religious authorities.

I have a better idea. Let's listen to the REAL Peter and not be fooled by any "cunningly devised fables" (2 Pet_1:16).

There is no reason to accept anything else, when you have God's words and the Apostle' testimony, tested and approved by tens of thousands of witnesses.

Axehead

 

[neophyte]

Axehead,Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
more here

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

Axehead, do you have a Ph.D inTheology, Bible language or Biblical History ? Well the following people have.Believe them, they, along with the early Church fathers and those that copied down the Words of God I would think know much more than you about this subject of Peter being the rock which Jesus built His Church on. .



William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.

Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock

John Peter Lange German, Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock

John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock

J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock

David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock

Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock

 

[Selene]

You must be a catholic, They twist the scriptures and the Greek.

I noticed you left out Strongs meaning for Petros, "A stone".
Also the Aramaic meaning is, "A Stone", See Jn 1: 42.


I gues you didn't read my post.
Here it is again. This time read it and believe it.

Greek, Peter, [A stone].
Aramaic, Peter, [A stone]
KJV, Peter, [ A stone] Jn 1: 42.

Peter, Petros, [Greek].
Cephes, [Aramaic]
A small stone that is easily moved or shaken.

The Rock that Jesus built His Church on.
Greek, [Petra].
Aramaic, [Shu'a]
KJV, [Rock.

There is absolutely no way Jesus could have build His Church on Peter.


The Bible makes it clear enough to everyone accept the catholics, That Peter means, "A Stone", Jn 1: 42.

Christ said in Aramaic, "You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my Church." There is a reason why Christ chose to change Peter's name. And it is not to diminish Peter. When God changes a person's name, it is because of a certain role that the person must now take. In this case, it was ONLY to Peter whom God the Father revealed who the Son is, and because of that, his name was changed because it is on Peter whom Christ will build His Church.

God desires unity and he often shares his titles with His Church. For example, Christ is called the Good Shepherd. The Holy Bible also says that the bishops are "shephards." Therefore, Christ is the rock and He shared that title with Peter "rock" because Peter has a new role. Furthermore, it was ONLY Peter whom Christ gave the keys, and these keys symbolized "authority."

 

[Alanforchrist]

Axehead,Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
more here

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

Axehead, do you have a Ph.D inTheology, Bible language or Biblical History ? Well the following people have.Believe them, they, along with the early Church fathers and those that copied down the Words of God I would think know much more than you about this subject of Peter being the rock which Jesus built His Church on. .



William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian says Peter is the Rock.

Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary says Peter is the Rock

John Peter Lange German, Protestant scholar says Peter is the Rock

John A. Broadus Baptist author says Peter is the Rock

J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary says Peter is the Rock

Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary says Peter is the Rock

David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England says Peter is the Rock

Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian says Peter is the Rock

Greek, Peter, [A stone].
Aramaic, Peter, [A stone]
KJV, Peter, [ A stone] Jn 1: 42.

Peter, Petros, [Greek].
Cephes, [Aramaic]
A small stone that is easily moved or shaken.

The Rock that Jesus built His Church on.
Greek, [Petra].
Aramaic, [Shu'a]
KJV, [Rock.

There is absolutely no way Jesus could have build His Church on Peter.


The Bible makes it clear enough to everyone accept the catholics, That Peter means, "A Stone", Jn 1: 42.

Christ said in Aramaic, "You are Cephas and on this Cephas I will build my Church." There is a reason why Christ chose to change Peter's name. And it is not to diminish Peter. When God changes a person's name, it is because of a certain role that the person must now take. In this case, it was ONLY to Peter whom God the Father revealed who the Son is, and because of that, his name was changed because it is on Peter whom Christ will build His Church.

God desires unity and he often shares his titles with His Church. For example, Christ is called the Good Shepherd. The Holy Bible also says that the bishops are "shephards." Therefore, Christ is the rock and He shared that title with Peter "rock" because Peter has a new role. Furthermore, it was ONLY Peter whom Christ gave the keys, and these keys symbolized "authority."

Jesus NEVER said, "You are Cephas and upon Cephas I will build My Church"
He said,
"You are Peter, Cephas, Petros, And upon This OTHER rock Shu'a,Petra, I will build My Church"


Jesus didn't build His Church on Peter, It was Jesus, The Apostles and prophets, Eph 2: 20.
Jesus changed Peter's name becuase He saw Peter was weak, Peter denied Jesus, He told lies, and Paul had to rebuke him.
So Jesus changed Peter's name to meam, "A stone that is easily moved or shaken". See Jn 1: 42.

Didn't Peter prove Jesus right??.

 

[veteran]

The 'keys' do represent what Axehead has said, but there's more details Christ gives about it in those Revelation verses...

Rev 3:7-10
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He That is holy, He That is true, He That hath the key of David, He That openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.


This was Christ's Message to those at the Church of Philadelphia. They represent His elect that have been given "eyes to see, and ears to hear". That's what this 'door' opened to them is about. Once Christ gives that, opening that door, then no man can shut it. What did they do to receive it? They showed strength in Him, i.e., Faith, and KEPT His Word. What does that mean, keeping His Word? It's the Greek word 'tereo' which means to guard, to attend to carefully, to watch, even the idea of fortress is associated with it. By that, do you think they fell to the various doctrines of men instead? No, they kept HIS WORD, not man's word, and that's the major differences with that idea. Christ will emphasis that idea again here further down.


Rev.3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
10 Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
(KJV)

To these only at the Church of Philadelphia, and those of the Church of Smyrna, did Christ bring up mention of that "synagogue of Satan" idea. By His mention of it to them as a matter of fact, it shows they... understood about it. That is one of the matters involving the 'key of David'. And because that 'door' was open to them by their keeping to HIS Word, having their spiritual eyes and ears opened, they understood. Notice Christ remarks once again how they kept The Word of His patience. The "hour of temptation" He mentions is about the coming great tribulation period of our near future, so this Message is STILL in effect for Christ's Churches today.

This is the difference between just having Faith on Christ Jesus and then relying on men's doctrines vs. getting understanding 'directly'... from our Lord Jesus by keeping to His Word in patience.

That patience translates to Bible study discipline. You'll find all sorts of doctrines of men from men's religious organizational systems ready to impart to you 'their' doctrines instead, if you listen to them. Our Lord Jesus warned us about holding to the leaven traditions of man. These kept His Word, and guarded It. Like our Lord Jesus said to those Jews who believed on Him, that if they staying in His Word, then they would be His disciples, and they would know the Truth, and the Truth would make them free. That means free in the spiritual sense so that no man, no spirit, nothing... could deceive. That's is actually how complete a protection from the things in this world the synagogue of Satan uses that the believer will not be deceived in. Thus the "door' is open, and no man can shut it.

 

[Rex]

Veteran all I can say is, you got every word right.
well done

 

[epostle1]

What veteran has done is ignored the parallel of what Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:19 with Rev. 3:7. It's almost word-for-word, and pretending there is no connection is just blindness.

Isa. 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.​

Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.​

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.​

Isa.22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,​

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.​

Isa.22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.​

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.​

Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.​

Do these words look familiar???

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.​

Isa. 22:23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.​

A "throne of honor"???​

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.​

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.​

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."​

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. ​

Jer. 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.​

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.​

Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.​

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.​

 

[Alanforchrist]

What veteran has done is ignored the parallel of what Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:19 with Rev. 3:7. It's almost word-for-word, and pretending there is no connection is just blindness.

Isa. 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.​

Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.​

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.​

Isa.22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,​

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.​

Isa.22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.​

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.​

Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.​

Do these words look familiar???

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.​

Isa. 22:23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.​

A "throne of honor"???​

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.​

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.​

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."​

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. ​

Jer. 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.​

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.​

Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.​

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.​

[1]The pope is just a devil inspired man made false leader of a devil inspired ma made false religion.
where in the Bible do you find.

Salvation by infant baptism.
Salvation by works.
Penance, indulgencies and works of satisfaction for the forgiveness of sins.
Mary, Ever sinless.
Mary, An ever virgin.
Mary's bodily going to heaven
Mary, a Co-redeemer.
Mary, A co-interceeder.
Mary praying for us.
The departed saints praying for us.
God's people praying to Mary and the departed saints.
Purgatory.
Pope's
Priests.??

You don't find any of those false catholic doctrines in the Bible. NOT WOTHOUT TWISTING IT.

[2]Jesus gave the key to every believer, We all have authoity and power.
He gave them to His Church, Not just Peter.

 

[veteran]

What veteran has done is ignored the parallel of what Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:19 with Rev. 3:7. It's almost word-for-word, and pretending there is no connection is just blindness.

Isa. 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.​

Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.​

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.​

Isa.22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,​

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.​

Isa.22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.​

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.​

Isa.22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.​

Do these words look familiar???

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.​

Isa. 22:23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.​

A "throne of honor"???​

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.​

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.​

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."​

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. ​

Jer. 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.​

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.​

Dan. 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.​

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.​

What is it you're really going on about against me???

Even in that Isaiah 22 chapter God is showing contrast between the FAKE vs. The TRUE. The scribe Shebna represents the fake, and Eliakim represents our Lord Jesus Christ, NOT a pope!

No pope is a son of David of the tribe of Judah sitting upon an earthly throne!


So what I covered in my previous post is DIRECTLY related to this "crept in unawares" subject of Isaiah 22, and their being one of the main cause of Israel's history of falling away from The LORD.

Important verses of isaiah 22 you left out to give it a different... flow than as written...


Isa 22:11-19
11 Ye made also a ditch between the two walls for the water of the old pool: but ye have not looked unto the maker thereof, neither had respect unto Him That fashioned it long ago.
12 And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth:
13 And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die.
14 And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.
15 Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, even unto Shebna, which is over the house, and say,
16 What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock?
17 Behold, the LORD will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee.
18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
19 And I will drive thee from thy station, and from thy state shall he pull thee down.
(KJV)

 

[Selene]

It's amazing to see how many people is against the Pope. Of course, we've had some good and bad Popes just as we have some good and bad priests. But even when Pope John Paul II was Pope, so many people stand against him, which makes me wonder why they hate the Pope and the Church so much. When Pope John Paul II was almost assassinated, he did not harbor any hatred for the person. After he recovered from the hospital, he went to see the man who shot him in prison and told him that he forgave him. And this is who they call the devil? SHEEZ!!! So, whatever happened to "love your neighbor and your enemies?????" SHEEZ!!!! For Shame!!!!

Matthew 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

 

[Alanforchrist]

It's amazing to see how many people is against the Pope. Of course, we've had some good and bad Popes just as we have some good and bad priests. But even when Pope John Paul II was Pope, so many people stand against him, which makes me wonder why they hate the Pope and the Church so much. When Pope John Paul II was almost assassinated, he did not harbor any hatred for the person. After he recovered from the hospital, he went to see the man who shot him in prison and told him that he forgave him. And this is who they call the devil? SHEEZ!!! So, whatever happened to "love your neighbor and your enemies?????" SHEEZ!!!! For Shame!!!!

Matthew 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I don't think people hate the pope, But Those who know the Bible, Hates the pope's eroneous unscritural doctrines.
And every pope should know what the scriptures and the Greek say, If they don't, They should never be in a place of leadership.
So they should know the Bible and the orginal Grre texts, So why do they twist them??.

For instance, The Biblical and Greek meaning for, "Water Baptism" is,
"Tottal imerssion, submersion", Yet every priest dabs water on an infant and say this child is baptised.
But that isn't baptism, So ask your priest why is he diliberately sending you to hell for not baptising you.

As the catholics believe water baptism saves.

And every pope should know the Biblical and Greek meaning for baptism, Yet they twist it.

 

[whitestone]

Here's how Jesus builds us up His Church;

(1Co 3:10)

According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.


(1Co 3:11)


For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

(1Pe 2:5)

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Simple and wonderful! And notice, Jesus does it through individual believers ENTIRELY without catholicism or any other denomination but only by His Holy Spirit in us That is how you can tell Jesus apart from man-made religions like catholicism or mormonism or JW etc.

 

[epostle1]

It's amazing to see how many people is against the Pope. Of course, we've had some good and bad Popes just as we have some good and bad priests. But even when Pope John Paul II was Pope, so many people stand against him, which makes me wonder why they hate the Pope and the Church so much. When Pope John Paul II was almost assassinated, he did not harbor any hatred for the person. After he recovered from the hospital, he went to see the man who shot him in prison and told him that he forgave him. And this is who they call the devil? SHEEZ!!! So, whatever happened to "love your neighbor and your enemies?????" SHEEZ!!!! For Shame!!!!

Matthew 5:11-12 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Amen. Still, after 500 years, Protestants (or whatever buzz-word they call themselves) have unsuccessfully tried to justify the rebellion of their spiritual ancestors, the so-called reformers. They do that by attacking the authority that Jesus established, that is: an earthly head of the Church. So they spiritualize the Church (and everything else) in a Gnostic manner.

It's all about authority. The premise they use for authority is based on "bible-alone" theory which is not in the bible. Their authority is subjective opinion of the Bible, which is no authority at all. They remain blind to the glaring evidence of the failure of sola scriptura, and continue to attack the authority of the Pope by pretending it wasn't there in the first place, remaining blind to the evidence.

The historical record is rejected, the writings of the earliest Christians is rejected, the councils are rejected, writings of great saints are rejected, consistent teaching is rejected, but novel interpretations of scripture by amoral aristocrats from the middle ages are accepted. This is insane.

I've been told, "I don't follow the reformers, I follow the Bible!" People who say this don't realize it is reformism to the core, and run off creating their own feel-good-bible-cult, and bad mouth the very CHURCH that gave them the Bible in the first place.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Amen. Still, after 500 years, Protestants (or whatever buzz-word they call themselves) have unsuccessfully tried to justify the rebellion of their spiritual ancestors, the so-called reformers. They do that by attacking the authority that Jesus established, that is: an earthly head of the Church. So they spiritualize the Church (and everything else) in a Gnostic manner.

It's all about authority. The premise they use for authority is based on "bible-alone" theory which is not in the bible. Their authority is subjective opinion of the Bible, which is no authority at all. They remain blind to the glaring evidence of the failure of sola scriptura, and continue to attack the authority of the Pope by pretending it wasn't there in the first place, remaining blind to the evidence.

The historical record is rejected, the writings of the earliest Christians is rejected, the councils are rejected, writings of great saints are rejected, consistent teaching is rejected, but novel interpretations of scripture by amoral aristocrats from the middle ages are accepted. This is insane.

I've been told, "I don't follow the reformers, I follow the Bible!" People who say this don't realize it is reformism to the core, and run off creating their own feel-good-bible-cult, and bad mouth the very CHURCH that gave them the Bible in the first place.

You are arguing with God.
God warns of the dangers of adding to His word.
He also says those who add to His word are disputing and arguing with God.
So for you to come against Sola scriptura, You are disputing and arguing with God, And adding to God's word.

Also the Hebrew meaning is , God judges you to be a liar for adding to His word.

Becaus God also says, To add to His word you are a liar.
So everyone who comes against sola scriptura, IS A LIAR. Acording to God.
And there are dangers of adding to God's word.

catholic have to add to the Bible, Because there doctrines aren't in the Bible,
Why do you think they make such a big fuss over sola scriptura??.

 

[Axehead]

Amen. Still, after 500 years, Protestants (or whatever buzz-word they call themselves) have unsuccessfully tried to justify the rebellion of their spiritual ancestors, the so-called reformers. They do that by attacking the authority that Jesus established, that is: an earthly head of the Church. So they spiritualize the Church (and everything else) in a Gnostic manner.

Actually, you are changing the story. If you look closely at God's word with an open heart you will see that the hierarchy of the RCC is in rebellion to Jesus Christ and the Scriptures.

It's all about authority. The premise they use for authority is based on "bible-alone" theory which is not in the bible. Their authority is subjective opinion of the Bible, which is no authority at all.

It is possible to only know the authority of men and being told that it is the "authority of God". This is actually the foundation for spiritual abuse in many christians cults. They don't know the authority of Jesus Christ Himself through His Word and His Holy Spirit. The RCC interpretation like others (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons) is a private interpretation, etc, because they say that the interpretation of their religious organization is THE ONLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION. That is the definition of a private interpretation. A non-private interpretation would be accepted by many, many people that are not related to each other by Sectarian denominations. This is the witness of the Holy Spirit's interpretation when many, unrelated people in different churches worldwide accept the same interpretation. There are many churches as we see in the scriptures that make up the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

The interpretation of the Scriptures is by the Holy Spirit alone, and it is given unto every Believer, not just those in leadership of a sectarian religious organization.

They remain blind to the glaring evidence of the failure of sola scriptura, and continue to attack the authority of the Pope by pretending it wasn't there in the first place, remaining blind to the evidence.

Once again, be careful that you do not have a veil over your eyes. It appears that you have substituted the “City of God” for Vatican City, and the kingdom of heaven for an earthly kingdom and Jesus Christ who is the current Head of the Church for a man (pope). This is why a veil is over your eyes! You have replaced the foundation. Now, instead of everything in the Bible revolving around Jesus Christ and the “heavenly Jerusalem”, it revolves around the Pope and his earthly “Church”. This is what happens when you replace the Chief Cornerstone with a pebble.

The historical record is rejected, the writings of the earliest Christians is rejected, the councils are rejected, writings of great saints are rejected, consistent teaching is rejected, but novel interpretations of scripture by amoral aristocrats from the middle ages are accepted. This is insane.

You reject the writings of the earliest Christians and the historical record in the New Testament. You go outside of the New Testament, after all the Apostles have died and you anoint other men as “church fathers” (who contradict the Word of God through the Apostles) and you hold up so-called "church fathers" as the new authorities over those that lived and witnessed the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Pentecost and the Acts of the Apostles.

I've been told, "I don't follow the reformers, I follow the Bible!" People who say this don't realize it is reformism to the core, and run off creating their own feel-good-bible-cult, and bad mouth the very CHURCH that gave them the Bible in the first place.

The Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired Apostles and Prophets of Christ who were eyewitnesses of His life, death and resurrection. Better to follow the Bible (and the Holy Spirit) than false teachings.

The NT Letters and Gospels were circulated and copied and sent to all the churches.

Paul wrote, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you..." (1 Cor_11:23). The writers of the New Testament wrote by inspiration.

The words that the Apostles wrote down were given by the direct revelation of God (2 Timothy 3:16,17). The product of their work was immediately acknowledged and accepted by those in the church. They "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42) and they received those teachings "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God" (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

These writings became "Scripture" and the word "Scripture" is used about 50 times in the New Testament and always refers to the written record of the will of God.

There was a gradual process of reading and copying and sending these writings throughout the world. “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea” (Col 4:16)

We know that many in the early church had access to multiple writings of Epistles and Gospels and this is proof that these writings were circulated. Paul (writing in about 65 A.D.) quotes Luke's gospel and refers to it as Scripture (see 1 Timothy 5:18and Luke 10:7). Peter (in 66 A.D.) mentions Paul's writings and calls them Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

These epistles were regarded with much esteem by the early church.
1Th_5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

During the first 50 years after the apostles there were several men who referred to the authority of the scriptures in what we now know as the NT. Clement of Rome, makes reference to Matthew, Mark, Hebrews, Romans, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians. The epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 115) and Polycarp (A.D. 130) refer to various New Testament books. Justin Martyr (A.D.100-165) made extensive appeal to the four Gospels and mentions Acts and Revelation. And they never referred to their writings as inspired by the Holy Spirit or were on the same level of authority as the 27 NT books.

Because of heresies coming into the church and bringing false doctrine (writings, epistles, gospels, etc), the early church defended the true writings. And they did not select a canon, rather they discovered the canon (the inspired writings of the Holy Spirit). The basis of canon is apostolic authority. Jesus through His apostles established the church and through them revealed his word to the Church (Scripture).

The Church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ and the Apostles as well, the Church is built upon this foundation, also. Jesus Christ is the foundation that the Apostles built on. Early writings had to be written by an Apostle or one (Luke) approved by the Lord (Holy Spirit) and they had to agree with the canon of truth (old testament canon) and not contradict other approved NT writings. The Church had to accept these writings (could the work be verified by eyewitnesses, and authenticated by the OT and corroborated by other church writings?).

As mentioned earlier, many heresies were started and the Gnostics were responsible for a slew of them. This required faithful servants of God to make a defense of the inspired writings. We know that heresies came into the church and we know that faithful brethren defended God’s Word. We have a record of their defense. While defending the NT they approved of writings that were actually produced by inspired men and likewise disapproved of uninspired writings. The heresies actually helped in recognizing that which was from God from that which was not from God.

1Co_11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.


2Pe_2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Questions about the canon of Scripture were already settled long before a "church council" was convened to discuss the matter at Carthage in A.D. 397. The "council" only "confirmed" what was already known to be true.

More reading.

Axehead

It's amazing to see how many people is against the Pope. Of course, we've had some good and bad Popes just as we have some good and bad priests.

Hi there Selene. Who were the bad popes and why were they bad?

 

[dragonfly]

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I [am] pure from the blood of all [men]. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.