[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Your claim was that it was not Biblical to claim that Jesus did proclaim that he was God and that it incorrect. It may be worth asking what you think Jesus was?



Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Christians believe that Jesus is God. The Bible teaches that God is one in essence, three in Person: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is fully God. God is not three gods but three in one. This is not a mathematical contradiction. Although humans cannot completely grasp the paradox of the tri-unity of God, we trust His revelation is true. Christians do not believe in three gods. Our one God manifests Himself in three Persons. If you do not believe that then you are not a Christian

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.

Sorry that does not make sense!


As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

These dates are commonly held by our best Biblical historians and the Christian Church.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Is a minority view and not commonly held by the Christian Church

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

as above

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

Not sure what you are driving at but i can see how far down the Wikipedia page for the Gospel of Mark you are!

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

Biblical evidence and external evidence from church fathers suggest that you are wrong as does the Christian Church and 2000 yeas of Christianity

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

[Glenn.]

What was wrong with calling this thread 'Was Jesus Gay?' Instead of 'Was Jesus a Gay.
Does it really matter? He isnt real. Just a character in a book that was written years and years ago. In a thousand years they will be talking about Harry Potter, and how he defeated the Dark Lord as fact.
Thats where Jesus came from. He is just part of the best selling book ever written.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Glenn

What was wrong with calling this thread 'Was Jesus Gay?' Instead of 'Was Jesus a Gay.
Does it really matter? He isnt real. Just a character in a book that was written years and years ago. In a thousand years they will be talking about Harry Potter, and how he defeated the Dark Lord as fact.
Thats where Jesus came from. He is just part of the best selling book ever written.

It is bizarre that an opinion like this even exists!

But then I presume that you do not "believe" in Pliny, Plato, Caesar, King Henry the 8th

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils. Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument, with the weight of the agreement of the over 300 bishops in attendance. [Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west). The number of participating bishops cannot be accurately stated; Socrates Scholasticus and Epiphanius of Salamis counted 318; Eusebius of Caesarea, only 250.]"


So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God, in some cases they believed that God had sent him, spoke through him or simply he was a very good man whose example should be followed Other heresies believed in the non humanity of Jesus. Others had still differing views about the created of the holy trinity etc.

Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,

Cerintus, , Carpocratians They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ;

Nestorianism (named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.

Ebionitism. Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divine. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings

Dynamic Monarchianism claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God,

Docetism is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die

The Nazareans, or "Jewish-Christians" as some of them were eventually called by the Romanized Christians, did not appreciate this distortion of their Teachers of Righteousness. These Nazareans did not accept the writings and doctrines of Paul, nor did they take much account of the Gospels which found their way into the New Testament bible. Instead, they used the Gospel of Hebrews which denied, among other things, the Roman version of the virgin birth.

Pelagianism - In their view every child was born absolutely innocent, free of what the traditional church called 'the original sin'. In effect this meant that to Pelagius Christ was not a saviour who took Adam's original sin upon himself, but merely a teacher who gave mankind an example of what man should be

All of them were christian all had one thing in common they were declared heretic, their teachings suppressed and they were given the chance to move back into what became the Roman Catholic Church, if not they were surpressed. A few hundred years ago denying the pope would have got you declared heretic and ex-communicated from the church at best.

Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

snip
To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

that is why we have The Bible and we judge Christianity on Jesus and his earthly ministry and not on man.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

So the bible is 100% factually true?

God made the first man, Adam and the first women, Eve and everyone else is descended from them?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

So the bible is 100% factually true?

God made the first man, Adam and the first women, Eve and everyone else is descended from them?

The Bible has many literary styles: poetry, allegory, historical fact, eyewitness account, love song, poetry, prophesy, psalms, proverbs and apocalyptic revelations. You read it as literature, paying close attention to form, figurative language and fantasy imagery.

[Shasown]

Genesis 1:26 Then god said "let us make man ...
:27 And god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him, male and female he created them.

Chapter 2 Seventh day he rested then Genesis 2: 7 then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground..... man became a living being. Gensisi 2:21 So the Lord god caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept...... ( takes rib makes Eve)

So did god have two pops at making men or not?

Adam and Eve have two children Cain and Abel, with me so far?

Genesis 4:17 And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived ... Enoch who then had Irad. Where did all these women come from?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Genesis 1:26 Then god said "let us make man ...
:27 And god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him, male and female he created them.

Chapter 2 Seventh day he rested then Genesis 2: 7 then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground..... man became a living being. Gensisi 2:21 So the Lord god caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept...... ( takes rib makes Eve)

So did god have two pops at making men or not?

Adam and Eve have two children Cain and Abel, with me so far?

Genesis 4:17 And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived ... Enoch who then had Irad. Where did all these women come from?

As you have "gleaned" these bog standard questions online and not from your own genuine questions let me save several posts and forward you to:

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulti...is-deuteronomy

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

As you have "gleaned" these bog standard questions online and not from your own genuine questions let me save several posts and forward you to:

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulti...is-deuteronomy

Wrong again. these questions and lots more were asked years ago by myself and others in RI(Religious Instruction) I was educated at a catholic school prior to entry into a seminary at 17.

Incidentally, what faith are you? You may feel this doesnt matter, but think about it. If you believe in the Bible so much how come you havent converted to Catholicism? After all Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

Is that not Jesus investing Peter as the earthly head of his church, in which case the catholic Church is the only church with a line of authority directly from Jesus.

[ElProximo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

But you just made that up.
Based on nothing.
You actually just wrote some baseless fantasy and said it like it was 'fact'.

There is every reason to believe gnosticism was a big problem in the early church and so too was 'legalism' (or we say 'Galatianism' too),
but,
No.
No, there is no story of gnostics getting defeated in some war with the orthodox christians,
and,
further more there is no reason to believe the 'winners' then erased the history of the other.

Here let me remind you again - THE REASON YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT SOME GNOSTICS AND OPPOSING GROUPS IS BECAUSE THE CHRISTIANS RECORDED THIS FOR US.
So in your fake story you made-up it asks us to believe they first suppressed their history but then all the early church fathers RECORDED AND PRESERVED THEIR ACCOUNTS, CRITICISMS AND DOCTRINES.
Stupid.

I mean if you are going to make up fake stories out of thin air then at least try and make them non-stupid like that one.

"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils.

But that is NOT what happens at Nicea.
In fact - the most 'telling' thing about Nicea is that Bishops begin the discussion like everyone ALREADY well understood all the basics and even most everything else.
The whole thing starts out in SO MUCH AGREEMENT that there is VERY LITTLE discussion about ANY of the Christian doctrines.

This is THE 'smoking gun' evidence that Christianity and its doctrines are ALREADY well established.
That they did not even feel the need to bring them up and carried on discussions as if already understood.

Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument,

No, that is not true at all.
There was no passionate discussions about 'each line' and what is the most telling is that there WAS NOT any passionate debates about these things.

The only 'passionate debate' was over a couple of dudes who were NOT debating whether or not Christ was Divine but over just what exactly 'essence of God' should mean.

So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

Uhh... well they were not representatives of 'different beliefs' but were bishops and leaders of Christian churches,
and,
again.. what is MOST TELLING is that the ones who made it came from often far-flung and entirely separate regions where many may well have never even know of the others.
IF there were 'many different beliefs' then you sure bet we would have seen it exposed when they all got to meet and compare,
but,
No... instead it is very obvious they all understood Christian doctrines and in near perfect agreement (certainly on all the basics which were a 'given' in this meet-up).

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God,............
Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,

Even after 'pre-mocking' this you still went for that weak 'overwhelming list',
but,
What you do is (as I said already) give me a list of exceptions PROVING THE RULE.
and,
Here again you screw your own made-up story about 'suppression' because YOU KNOW ABOUT MOST OF THESE FROM THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS WHO ARE YOUR TEACHERS AND PRESERVED THIS KNOWLEDGE YOU JUST RECEIVED.

Orthodox Christians recorded and preserved knowledge of the critics. In fact early Church fathers did a superb job documenting these groups.
Woops!

Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

Yes, I am already aware you have been on Wiki for over an hour and finding ways to 'retell' this but in a way that makes it sound like its arguing against Christianity and for your fake story and 'as if' you were educating.
Good job!

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

What I would tell you is that a billion Christians crossing the planet and crossing just about every mainline denomination (certainly all the largest ones) go to their church that accepts Jesus as God incarnate as Nicene described it and as is the 'orthodox' view.

Again, you can go ahead and list the 200+ 'Christian' orgs with some other views but that is just making my point for me.

What about this is confusing to you anyways?
You thought Roman Catholics, Presbys, Lutherans, Anglicans all had 'different interpretations' and all had different opinions about whether Jesus was God or not?
Well wrong.
Get real.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Wrong again. these questions and lots more were asked years ago by myself and others in RI(Religious Instruction) I was educated at a catholic school prior to entry into a seminary at 17.

Incidentally, what faith are you? You may feel this doesnt matter, but think about it. If you believe in the Bible so much how come you havent converted to Catholicism? After all Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

Is that not Jesus investing Peter as the earthly head of his church, in which case the catholic Church is the only church with a line of authority directly from Jesus.

Matt. 16:18 you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter's relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter's confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus' entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself. But even if “this rock” refers to Peter, the question remains as to what that means. Protestants generally have thought that it refers to Peter in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah, and that the other disciples would share in that role as they made a similar confession (see Eph. 2:20, where the church is built on all the apostles; cf. Rev. 21:14). Jesus' statement did not mean that Peter would have greater authority than the other apostles (indeed, Paul corrects him publicly in Gal. 2:11–14), nor did it mean that he would be infallible in his teaching (Jesus rebukes him in Matt. 16:23), nor did it imply anything about a special office for Peter or successors to such an office. Certainly in the first half of Acts Peter appears as the spokesman and leader of the Jerusalem church, but he is still “sent” by other apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and he has to give an account of his actions to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1–18). Peter is presented as having only one voice at the Jerusalem council, and James has the decisive final word (Acts 15:7–21). And, though Peter certainly has a central role in the establishment of the church, he disappears from the Acts narrative after Acts 16. “Church” (Gk. ekklēsia) is used only here and in Matt. 18:17 in the Gospels. Jesus points ahead to the time when his disciples, his family of faith (12:48–50), will be called “my church.” Jesus will build his church, and though it is founded on the apostles and the prophets, “Christ Jesus himself [is] the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Some scholars object that Jesus could not have foreseen the later emergence of the “church” at this time, but the use of Greek ekklēsia to refer to God's “called out” people has substantial background in the Septuagint (e.g., Deut. 9:10; 31:30; 1 Sam. 17:47; 1 Kings 8:14). Jesus is predicting that he will build a community of believers who follow him. This “called out” community would soon become known as “the church,” a separate community of believers, as described in the book of Acts. gates of hell (Gk. hadēs, “Hades”; cf. “gates of Sheol” [Isa. 38:10]; “gates of death” [Job 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18]). “Gates” were essential for a city's security and power. Hades, or Sheol, is the realm of the dead. Death will not overpower the church.

ESV Study Bible notes

[InOne]

Well to be fair it does not matter what the Christians think, there is no God anyway.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by ElProximo

But you just made that up.

Get real.

PMSL I didnt make any of it up, there is no need to. Its a matter of historical fact. Regardless of how much you try to ridicule the truth, you know it is true and you cant disprove it.

The early christians recorded it so that everyone would know what was the true faith(in their eyes).

If you cant handle the truth you best not look at subjects like the Cathars, the burning of Priscillian and his followers?

Constantine converted to christianity in the 310's after that time christianity became a persecuting religion. Following the decline of the Roman Empire things settled, however business resumed as normal in the heretic persecution industry in the 11th century.

What was the Inquisition all about then?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

Well to be fair it does not matter what the Christians think, there is no God anyway.

You keep telling yourself that Inone and perhaps one day you may convince yourself

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Matt. 16:18 you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter's relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter's confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus' entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself. But even if “this rock” refers to Peter, the question remains as to what that means. Protestants generally have thought that it refers to Peter in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah, and that the other disciples would share in that role as they made a similar confession (see Eph. 2:20, where the church is built on all the apostles; cf. Rev. 21:14). Jesus' statement did not mean that Peter would have greater authority than the other apostles (indeed, Paul corrects him publicly in Gal. 2:11–14), nor did it mean that he would be infallible in his teaching (Jesus rebukes him in Matt. 16:23), nor did it imply anything about a special office for Peter or successors to such an office. Certainly in the first half of Acts Peter appears as the spokesman and leader of the Jerusalem church, but he is still “sent” by other apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and he has to give an account of his actions to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1–18). Peter is presented as having only one voice at the Jerusalem council, and James has the decisive final word (Acts 15:7–21). And, though Peter certainly has a central role in the establishment of the church, he disappears from the Acts narrative after Acts 16. “Church” (Gk. ekklēsia) is used only here and in Matt. 18:17 in the Gospels. Jesus points ahead to the time when his disciples, his family of faith (12:48–50), will be called “my church.” Jesus will build his church, and though it is founded on the apostles and the prophets, “Christ Jesus himself [is] the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Some scholars object that Jesus could not have foreseen the later emergence of the “church” at this time, but the use of Greek ekklēsia to refer to God's “called out” people has substantial background in the Septuagint (e.g., Deut. 9:10; 31:30; 1 Sam. 17:47; 1 Kings 8:14). Jesus is predicting that he will build a community of believers who follow him. This “called out” community would soon become known as “the church,” a separate community of believers, as described in the book of Acts. gates of hell (Gk. hadēs, “Hades”; cf. “gates of Sheol” [Isa. 38:10]; “gates of death” [Job 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18]). “Gates” were essential for a city's security and power. Hades, or Sheol, is the realm of the dead. Death will not overpower the church.

ESV Study Bible notes

Neat quote mate however To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom.

Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

You keep telling yourself that Inone and perhaps one day you may convince yourself

I think it is you who needs to keep convincing himself there is lol

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Neat quote mate however To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom.

Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

I will go with the ESV scholars thanks

and it is Mr mate to you

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

I think it is you who needs to keep convincing himself there is lol

keep trying

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I will go with the ESV scholars thanks

and it is Mr mate to you

No thanks respect has to be earned in my eyes.

Incidentally isnt your arguement that Peter wasnt meant to be Pope flying in the face of christine doctrine established for 16 centuries (from the foundations of the church until the reformation)? Or is that once again muddying the issue with fact? I do recall you accusing me of something similar.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

keep trying

I still don't know if you're even really Christian or not lol

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Shasown

No thanks respect has to be earned in my eyes.

Incidentally isnt your arguement that Peter wasnt meant to be Pope flying in the face of christine doctrine established for 16 centuries (from the foundations of the church until the reformation)? Or is that once again muddying the issue with fact? I do recall you accusing me of something similar.

I don't have an argument, however you seem to have issues with semantics that have scaled your eyes to the rather obvious bigger picture.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by InOne

I still don't know if you're even really Christian or not lol

I would suggest that you have little idea what to be a Christian really is, and i don't mean that in a mean way.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I would suggest that you have little idea what to be a Christian really is, and i don't mean that in a mean way.

I know what it is about, I just don't need a 'god'