Sola Scriptura

[Guest shiloh357]

It's not a Roman thing or Orthodox or Anglican thing or what ever other denominations have Bishops.

Jesus left his authority with the Apostles. He left keys with Peter making him the head of the Church Christ is to build. This not a denomination thing it's a scripture thing.

 

Jesus did not make Peter the head of the Church.   And He did not leave HIS authority with the apostles.  The Bible never says.   He gave them authority in the up and coming fledging congregation, but He did not transfer His divine authority to them.   Sorry, but there is NO Scripture for that.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Shiloh you are simple wrong. When Jesus passes on the keys his is doing what was done in Isaiah 22:20-22

20In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

21and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your belt 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.

22And 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.

In Isaiah God is taking authority over the Davidic from Shebna and giving it to Eli'akim.

Jesus being the new King is now giving that authority over to Peter.

Deny all you want but it's all right there in scripture.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh you are simple wrong. When Jesus passes on the keys his is doing what was done in Isaiah 22:20-22

20In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

21and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your belt 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.

22And 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.

In Isaiah God is taking authority over the Davidic from Shebna and giving it to Eli'akim.

Jesus being the new King is now giving that authority over to Peter.

Deny all you want but it's all right there in scripture.

No, you are fabricating or manufacturing a connection  between those two passages that isn't in the Bible.  You have NO theological, hermeneutic or exegetical basis for connecting those two passages.  You need to demonstrate from Scripture that such a connection is warranted.   Where does the NT make that connection?

 

I thought you were content with the fact that your position isn't biblical.   So why are you now trying to force view into the Bible???    You need to make up your mind.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

No I asked the question that if I took the position that it was not biblical .... Than you made the back peddling comment. Perhaps I was not clear in my reply.

What I was content with was my original postion and argument.

And to make the claim that those two passages are not connected is on very weak ground. But you are free to believe what you want.

Like I said my arguments are solid and I stand by them.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

And to make the claim that those two passages are not connected is on very weak ground. But you are free to believe what you want.

 

 

No, it is your attempt to link those passages together that is standing on weak ground.  The Bible doesn't make that connection.  You are manufacturing a weak connection based on the usage of similar words, but you are mixing contexts and that is poor exegesis.   I am not the one standing on shaky ground, theologically.  This is just another attempt reach for anything you can to support some myth you have about Jesus granting His authority to the Church.
 

[Persuaded]

Paul apparently wasn't aware that Peter had the keys and was the head of the church:

Galatians 2:

11 Now when Peter[fn] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul apparently wasn't aware that Peter had the keys and was the head of the church:

Galatians 2:

11 Now when Peter[fn] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

Yes and James headed up the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, not Peter.   So evidently none of the other disciples got the memo that Peter was the head of the Church.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

An argument between two apostles and someone aiding in the running of the Church are your arguments against Church authority.

John 20:19-23

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

20When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

21Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

The authority went to all the apostles with Peter being the head of the Church.

Jesus giving the power to forgive sins is a bit compelling to me, since only God can forgive sins.

Also Jesus saying As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. Also compelling.

How many of your preachers have those under them associate pastor or what not? Why because they aren't good enough. Does 100% of the congregation agree with your pastor 100% of the time.

Sorry but an argument between Paul and Peter and James leading anything does not disprove Church authority.

[Guest shiloh357]

An argument between two apostles and someone aiding in the running of the Church are your arguments against Church authority.

 

 

No it is an argument against Peter being the head of the Church, something which the Bible never claims.

 

John 20:19-23

19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

20When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

21Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

23If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

The authority went to all the apostles with Peter being the head of the Church.

Jesus giving the power to forgive sins is a bit compelling to me, since only God can forgive sins.

 

Except you misunderstand what Jesus is talking about.  Jesus is not giving them the power to absolve sins the way God can.  You are completely misreading that.   It is talking the life of the community and the power to judiciate between parties, much the way we do in a court of law.  They had the authority to do three things: Judiciate, legislate and teach.  The same as the Rabbi of any Jewish community.

 

Also Jesus saying As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. Also compelling.

How many of your preachers have those under them associate pastor or what not? Why because they aren't good enough. Does 100% of the congregation agree with your pastor 100% of the time.

Sorry but an argument between Paul and Peter and James leading anything does not disprove Church authority.

 

 

They are not designed to answer to the issue of Church authority, only to the issue of whether or not Peter was considered the head of the Church.  A claim that has exactly NO support whatsoever in the Bible.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

Shiloh

Except you misunderstand what Jesus is talking about. Jesus is not giving them the power to absolve sins the way God can. You are completely misreading that. It is talking the life of the community and the power to judiciate between parties, much the way we do in a court of law. They had the authority to do three things: Judiciate, legislate and teach. The same as the Rabbi of any Jewish community.

Wow. I am the one misreading. Where in the passage does it say anything close to what you just described.

I'm done for the day, last word to you