Profound, what a sincere, humble and honest witness, as a convert myself and a Canadian, so impressed with Thomas, I converted after attending Catholic masse# with my girlfriend now wife of over 50 years, it takes a heart and mind to be Catholic.
Two words combined as Colossians 2 shows as brethren in Christ expressed by the word ' Christadelphian ' was coined by a medical doctor John Thomas MD wrote 'Elpis Israel ' discovered that bible teaching on the soul is not taught properly so people are decieved into believing that being ' immortal ' go to heaven but God is planning to set up an everlasting kingdom on earth Daniel 2:44 when he sends Jesus back from heaven to raise the dead ( who therefore are not in heaven and also Jesus told the disciples 'no man ascends into heaven EXCEPT the son of man which is in heaven ' John 3:13 So when God sends Jesus back from His right hand to the earth as Psalm 110:1-3 clearly shows he raises the dead and then the faithful are given immortal nature as 1 Corinthians chapter 15:52 teaches and then they come with Jesus Christ and bind the Kings of the earth as Psalm 149 shows and establishes Jerusalem (Psalm 2) and then calls up all the nations as Isaiah 2 shows 😊
The truth is simple and easy to understand and not complicated by the traditions of men seen manifested in the Catholic Church. The question always comes down to WHO are we going to ultimately believe? The first Truth of God that if disobedient DEATH would result Adam given one simple command only to obey. Or be decieved like Eve by the serpent LIE you won't die!!! A direct contradiction of God's words? Yes most prefer the lie to believe in heaven going at death but fail to realize the truth of how come Jesus died to open up the way to everlasting life through his sacrifice. The atonement God provides by belief, his Grace and our BAPTISM into Christ are what save us now to be able to walk by faith toward the kingdom of God faithful lives lived in Hope of the salvation of God at the return of Jesus Christ to change our vile body, but our mind must become like the mind of Christ to be of value to God😊
Good for you,l looked at many different doctrines before my batisim at the age 22 l was not bought up as a christadelphian 42years later lm so thankful l made that decision l think this guy didn't study the bible as we are encouraged to.
I knew a good co-worker who is a Christadelphian, and he was the only one I know about. We never really spoke about particular doctrines, so learning about their beliefs is great.
I’m a Christadelphian, and even though our beliefs don’t exactly line up, I like that you have some manner of faith! Here in the comments we spend a little too much time focusing on our disagreements (and maybe that’s ok) but I’d like to take this opportunity to wish you well as we navigate through life.
What an inspirational video on Thomas' story! How clearly Thomas presents connections in the Old Testament and the New for the role and mission of Peter.
Hi Tom. Im from Cape Town, South Africa, and I remember the two of us having an email debate way back in 2001. I was an evangelical then. And i also converted to Catholicism in 2019.
I used to study the christadelphians but it's sooo much material. I prefer learning about Mormons 😂 I'd love to know if any Catholics ever came from Swedenborgianism 🤔 But listening to this it makes me wonder why Ecclesiastical deism isn't more common amongst protestant-minded Christians. Like Calvinists deny miracles, affirm their just as fallable as every prior organization, and such . Yet, somehow, they think their doctrine is all correct. Somehow the Holy Spirit was working to make that one thing happen .
How do Christadelphians believe baptism is regenerative if they also believe that the holy spirit is inaccessible to the church and doesn't work in our hearts
Christadelphian are a lay movement that accept the Bible as the divine Revelation from God to man his creation, who was made in the image & likeness of God, very good in kind and condition, with potential to give his maker the honour, praise, thanksgiving, and glory that is His due! Created very good, placed in a pristine environment where all that was needed for his life bearing survival and sustenance, man was given one prohibition which would secure his tenancy in the garden where his maker had placed him, and which he was to dress and keep, and comply to the prohibition God had given him, and Adam gave to his wife. 0 The fall into dissobedience saw the couple ejected from their environment and the keeping of the way of the tree of life, so that 1- the way would still be open to a future time, and 2- man could Not eat of it and "live forever" therefore leaving 3them both quite mortal, and subject to death: and in there remaining years continue to grow up into godliness, & in the fear of God, and seek for glory, honour and immortality, even eternal life, which they never had in their formation, and novitiate. Hence "the lie" of the serpent and which mainstream Christianity had embraced and perpetuated down through history, and is preached today in "the immortality of the soul" man is still under the false belief that Eve was beguiled by through the serpents reasoning. Romans 2: speaks of those who seek for glory, honour, and immortality (& if man is counciled to seek for it , He doesn't possess it) they will be granted eternal life. Sadly Thomas' conversion to Catholicism will leave him "without hope, and without God in the world." Ephesians. Gregory Christadelphian Australia.
You never learned the truth of Yahweh because Catholic teachers confuse the understanding of of how God is God alone and Jesus Christ is His son by the holy spirit power upon Mary, yet is our brother and suffered death on the cross by Gods request. God is One as Deuteronomy Chapter 6:4 declares and God said there's no God besides me in Isaiah chapter 45:5. God cannot die being immortal as 1 Timothy 6:16 and cannot be tempted as James 1:13 clearly teaches. Jesus expressly had to share our human nature with all of the weaknesses to destroy sin and death and open up the way to everlasting life
Mark 12:28-34 Jesus affirms the scribe's understanding of the Shema (Deut 6:4). Meaning, Jesus affirms the Jewish understanding of the Shema. Judaism has always been strictly unitarian. The trinity also conflicts with Deut 13:1-6, where God warns about those who teach a god whom their fathers have not known. None of the patriarchs believed in a triune god. A Biblical Unitarian does not have to contend with the "2 natures", or how 3 are 1, but not 1 but 3. We accept the same understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Just that we have also accepted the messiah, and his part in fulfilling the promises made to Abraham, blessing all nations with his sacrifice for us. I agree that the guy never learned the truth, or he just never believed to begin with. I don't know how one can learn the full scope of the gospel that Christadelphians teach, and then ignore it and accept a partial of it, with a different hope of going to heaven when you die that the Catholic/mainstream teaches. He will surely be shocked come that great day of the lord Jesus.
Suan, didn't Christ already give the Apostles exorcism authority in Matthew 11? Why would he need to give Peter that authority again in Matthew 16 and the apostles in Matthew 18?
So sad to hear your totally decieved mind express itself in the confusion you have fallen into seemingly irreparably - I can only imagine how terrible Ted Farrar and Bill Farrar will feel watching you being cast out from Christ for having denied the faith in Christ Jesus 😮
Great video. Would love to see evidence of Patristic support for the argument of Eliakim's foreshadowing the papacy otherwise it's purely a protestant sola scriptura concept to be jettisoned and not part of the apostolic tradition & thus nor the apostolic faith.
@@MrDLiver It is hard indeed to find Patristic references (explicitly) connecting Peter and Eliakim or the explored parallel between Matthew-16 and Isaiah-22 in the Patristic literature. But it’s surely possible to find a great deal connecting the ideas of the “keys” and the “rock” with a specific kind of authority the Roman bishops uniquely held. In a sense, I’d say the papacy is not dependent on the antiquity of manifestations of any typological connection Peter-Eliakim stricly, albeit the argument must be taken seriously as the Christian-Rabbinic Jewish writings started to be even more accessible to one another; rather, it is evidently true to say the papacy is much more substantiated by the very references to the “keys” and the “rock” on themselves, which are (on the contrary) sufficiently voluminous in Greek, Latin and Syriac Patristics, just as in the documentation of Ecumenical Councils of the 1st millennium (mostly Ephesus/431, Chalcedon/451, Third Constantinople/680-681 and Second Nicea/787). Not even serious Protestants or Eastern Orthodox theologians dispute that assertion. With that being said, I’ve found two more convincing Church Fathers on “this issue”, knowing that - having to be very honest here - still I couldn’t find Peter-Eliakim or Matthew 16 - Isaiah 22 in explicit terms. The first to make an implicit case would be St Ephrem of Syria, Doctor of the Catholic Church: _”Simon, my disciple, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I called you "rock" that you might sustain my entire building. You are the overseer of those who build a church for me on earth. If they should wish to build something forbidden, prevent them, for you are the foundation. You are the head of the fountain from which my doctrine is drawn. You are the head of my disciples. Through you all nations shall drink. Yours is that vivifying sweetness that I bestow. I have chosen you to be as a firstborn in my institution and heir to all my treasures. The keys of the kingdom I have given to you, and behold I make you prince over all my treasures”._ (S. Ephr. Hymn. et Serm., vol. 1, pr. 411). Commentary: Even though Peter-Eliakim or Matthew 16 - Isaiah 22 don’t happen to come in a sort of explicit reference, St Ephrem mentions the one holding the “keys” of the kingdom as a prince over the ‘treasures’. This kind of poetic language most probably references the king’s palace, which is where the kingdom’s treasury could be found in the Ancient world. The other I could find to make an implicit case is St John Cassian: _”Let us consult the] greatest of disciples among disciples, and of teachers among teachers, who presided and ruled over the Roman Church, and held the chief place in the priesthood as he did in the faith. Tell us then, tell us, we pray, O Peter, you chief of Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought to believe in God. For it is right that you should teach us, as you were taught by the Lord, and that you should open to us the gate, of which you received the key. Shut out all those who try to overthrow the heavenly house: and those who are endeavouring to enter by secret holes and unlawful approaches: as it is clear that none can enter the gate of the kingdom save one to whom the key bestowed on the Churches is revealed by you”_ (Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation, book 3, chapter 12). Commentary: Notice St John Cassian is utterly explicit in defining the Roman bishop as the head (and ruler, having the presidency, which is nothing like a honorific-only flattery) of the Church universal, and in presenting it - clearly - as a Petrine ministry instituted by the Lord. What is interesting here is that he references the “keys” in the sense of asking the Pope of Rome to “shut” heretics out of the “kingdom” (in this case, Nestorians) but this language “open-shut” is not used in Matthew, but it is indeed - and exactly- in Isaiah. Those were my best shots, but it is hard to find clear-cut references of the Eliakim-Peter parallelism in Church Fathers. Maybe (it’s a speculation) because it was not habitual (which would be understandable) for the Church Fathers to have access to or interest in the Rabbinic sources in order to investigate the more “semitic” biblical exegesis of Matthew on the deeper level, and the “halakhic” literature to back it up therefore. The Catholic-Jewish dialogues and/or disputations were essentially happening only in the Late Medieval period (like the time when St Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides would wrestle theological themes, for instance).
@@masterchief8179 Yeah and that's why I don't think the argument should really be made as there isn't really enough Patristic evidence connecting Peter with Eliakim (there might be more uncovered in the future) but for now I think it's just best to let evidence from St Cassian and other church fathers stating St Peter as the chief apostle to stand on its own.
@@MrDLiver I definitely get your point. Yet the Roman Lectionary lines up Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 together for the Mass readings in the twenty-first week of year A (‘Lex orandi, lex credendi’), so it’s not that simple for a Catholic to absolutely drop it simply on the basis that there aren’t much early explicit connections in the Patristic era. Well, of course some of the greatest disputant minds against Protestantism (St Robert Bellarmine, Thomas Cardinal Cajetan and my favorite St Francis of Sales) all made the exact connection Peter-Eliakim explicitly in the 1500s but, quite frankly, there weren’t so much “papal polemics” ancient enough in ecclesiastical history. Prior to 863 I’d argue there are no true papal polemics (but some few polemical ecclesiastical facts concerning the papacy and how they are interpreted). I’d personally defend the importance of those exegetical parallels even if they are only implicit in the more ancient sources (when they ever appear); with that being said, I’ve seen some Protestants even bashing Cameron Bertuzzi’s conversion due to the fact that they thought this parallel unconvincing (as if it was all about it). So it shouldn’t be presented as a flagship argument for the papacy. I’s not. I agree 95% with you, I’d only say Catholics shouldn’t simply drop the argument but calibrate it to be much less used in inter-Christian polemics. The effect can be the exact opposite.
The keys are not what you think because the LORD commanded Peter three times saying, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17). Therefore, Peter gave the keys of the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium. And Peter reveals to the sheep what the keys are in 2 Peter 1:5-11. He writes, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep and we will never fall. So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall? If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group of men you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11). Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44). ... ... ...
I’m a Christadelphian, and even though our beliefs don’t exactly line up, I like that you have some manner of faith! Here in the comments we spend a little too much time focusing on our disagreements (and maybe that’s ok) but I’d like to take this opportunity to wish you well as we navigate through life.
I’m a Christadelphian, and even though our beliefs don’t exactly line up, I like that you have some manner of faith! Here in the comments we spend a little too much time focusing on our disagreements (and maybe that’s ok) but I’d like to take this opportunity to wish you well as we navigate through life.
Profound, what a sincere, humble and honest witness, as a convert myself and a Canadian, so impressed with Thomas, I converted after attending Catholic masse# with my girlfriend now wife of over 50 years, it takes a heart and mind to be Catholic.
My first question before clicking this vid was what the hell a Christadelphian is.
You came to the right place
A group of Christian’s who get a lot of the Bible correct
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs nope
Two words combined as Colossians 2 shows as brethren in Christ expressed by the word ' Christadelphian ' was coined by a medical doctor John Thomas MD wrote 'Elpis Israel ' discovered that bible teaching on the soul is not taught properly so people are decieved into believing that being ' immortal ' go to heaven but God is planning to set up an everlasting kingdom on earth Daniel 2:44 when he sends Jesus back from heaven to raise the dead ( who therefore are not in heaven and also Jesus told the disciples 'no man ascends into heaven EXCEPT the son of man which is in heaven ' John 3:13 So when God sends Jesus back from His right hand to the earth as Psalm 110:1-3 clearly shows he raises the dead and then the faithful are given immortal nature as 1 Corinthians chapter 15:52 teaches and then they come with Jesus Christ and bind the Kings of the earth as Psalm 149 shows and establishes Jerusalem (Psalm 2) and then calls up all the nations as Isaiah 2 shows 😊
@@cc3775see Elpis Israel by Dr John Thomas MD written in 1848 and you will discover the truth of God
Thanks!! Great interview. Very informative! So now I will pray for the conversion of Christadelphians and Jews.
Pray for them to convert to the great apostasy?
Catholicism is corrupt
@@cc3775Exactly.
O! Interesting video. I am just about to become a Christadelphian.
Nice I am one
Me too.Feel free to ask me questions.
The truth is simple and easy to understand and not complicated by the traditions of men seen manifested in the Catholic Church. The question always comes down to WHO are we going to ultimately believe? The first Truth of God that if disobedient DEATH would result Adam given one simple command only to obey. Or be decieved like Eve by the serpent LIE you won't die!!! A direct contradiction of God's words? Yes most prefer the lie to believe in heaven going at death but fail to realize the truth of how come Jesus died to open up the way to everlasting life through his sacrifice. The atonement God provides by belief, his Grace and our BAPTISM into Christ are what save us now to be able to walk by faith toward the kingdom of God faithful lives lived in Hope of the salvation of God at the return of Jesus Christ to change our vile body, but our mind must become like the mind of Christ to be of value to God😊
Good for you,l looked at many different doctrines before my batisim at the age 22 l was not bought up as a christadelphian 42years later lm so thankful l made that decision l think this guy didn't study the bible as we are encouraged to.
@@afienabeard973 I was baptised in April this year and am now a Christadelphian. :)
This is so awesome. God bless you brothers!
I knew a good co-worker who is a Christadelphian, and he was the only one I know about.
We never really spoke about particular doctrines, so learning about their beliefs is great.
I’m a Christadelphian, and even though our beliefs don’t exactly line up, I like that you have some manner of faith!
Here in the comments we spend a little too much time focusing on our disagreements (and maybe that’s ok) but I’d like to take this opportunity to wish you well as we navigate through life.
What an inspirational video on Thomas' story! How clearly Thomas presents connections in the Old Testament and the New for the role and mission of Peter.
Never heard of Christadelphian.
You've never questioned your dogma.
I've heard many theologians like James White, and Rabbi Tovia Singer mention them.
What a wonderful podcast... Nice to listen on the go...
Hi Tom. Im from Cape Town, South Africa, and I remember the two of us having an email debate way back in 2001. I was an evangelical then. And i also converted to Catholicism in 2019.
I used to study the christadelphians but it's sooo much material. I prefer learning about Mormons 😂 I'd love to know if any Catholics ever came from Swedenborgianism 🤔
But listening to this it makes me wonder why Ecclesiastical deism isn't more common amongst protestant-minded Christians. Like Calvinists deny miracles, affirm their just as fallable as every prior organization, and such . Yet, somehow, they think their doctrine is all correct. Somehow the Holy Spirit was working to make that one thing happen .
I’ve been studying Mormons myself. It’s endlessly fascinating, I keep finding out new things!
How do Christadelphians believe baptism is regenerative if they also believe that the holy spirit is inaccessible to the church and doesn't work in our hearts
Baptism doesn’t change us. It forgives our previous sins but you don’t get the Holy Spirit from it. Still sin after baptism
Thanks for your interview would you be interested in getting a Christadelphian to come and talk ?
The Christadelphians do believe God’s power or spirit has been active through our history.
Christadelphian are a lay movement that accept the Bible as the divine Revelation from God to man his creation, who was made in the image & likeness of God, very good in kind and condition, with potential to give his maker the honour, praise, thanksgiving, and glory that is His due!
Created very good, placed in a pristine environment where all that was needed for his life bearing survival and sustenance, man was given one prohibition which would secure his tenancy in the garden where his maker had placed him, and which he was to dress and keep, and comply to the prohibition God had given him, and Adam gave to his wife. 0
The fall into dissobedience saw the couple ejected from their environment and the keeping of the way of the tree of life, so that 1- the way would still be open to a future time, and 2- man could Not eat of it and "live forever" therefore leaving 3them both quite mortal, and subject to death: and in there remaining years continue to grow up into godliness, & in the fear of God, and seek for glory, honour and immortality, even eternal life, which they never had in their formation, and novitiate. Hence "the lie" of the serpent and which mainstream Christianity had embraced and perpetuated down through history, and is preached today in "the immortality of the soul" man is still under the false belief that Eve was beguiled by through the serpents reasoning.
Romans 2: speaks of those who seek for glory, honour, and immortality (& if man is counciled to seek for it , He doesn't possess it) they will be granted eternal life.
Sadly Thomas' conversion to Catholicism will leave him "without hope, and without God in the world." Ephesians.
Gregory Christadelphian Australia.
Christadelphian? Maaaaaaaaan I thought I had heard it all
No way!!! Thomas!
This was very interesting
You never learned the truth of Yahweh because Catholic teachers confuse the understanding of of how God is God alone and Jesus Christ is His son by the holy spirit power upon Mary, yet is our brother and suffered death on the cross by Gods request. God is One as Deuteronomy Chapter 6:4 declares and God said there's no God besides me in Isaiah chapter 45:5. God cannot die being immortal as 1 Timothy 6:16 and cannot be tempted as James 1:13 clearly teaches. Jesus expressly had to share our human nature with all of the weaknesses to destroy sin and death and open up the way to everlasting life
Mark 12:28-34 Jesus affirms the scribe's understanding of the Shema (Deut 6:4). Meaning, Jesus affirms the Jewish understanding of the Shema. Judaism has always been strictly unitarian.
The trinity also conflicts with Deut 13:1-6, where God warns about those who teach a god whom their fathers have not known. None of the patriarchs believed in a triune god.
A Biblical Unitarian does not have to contend with the "2 natures", or how 3 are 1, but not 1 but 3. We accept the same understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Just that we have also accepted the messiah, and his part in fulfilling the promises made to Abraham, blessing all nations with his sacrifice for us.
I agree that the guy never learned the truth, or he just never believed to begin with.
I don't know how one can learn the full scope of the gospel that Christadelphians teach, and then ignore it and accept a partial of it, with a different hope of going to heaven when you die that the Catholic/mainstream teaches.
He will surely be shocked come that great day of the lord Jesus.
Suan, didn't Christ already give the Apostles exorcism authority in Matthew 11? Why would he need to give Peter that authority again in Matthew 16 and the apostles in Matthew 18?
So sad to hear your totally decieved mind express itself in the confusion you have fallen into seemingly irreparably - I can only imagine how terrible Ted Farrar and Bill Farrar will feel watching you being cast out from Christ for having denied the faith in Christ Jesus 😮
This goes to probe, you learn something everyday. I'd never heard of this group.
Great video.
Would love to see evidence of Patristic support for the argument of Eliakim's foreshadowing the papacy otherwise it's purely a protestant sola scriptura concept to be jettisoned and not part of the apostolic tradition & thus nor the apostolic faith.
Off the top of my head Saint Thomas Aquinas notes the connection
@@danieljoyce6199
Yeah but I mean more early church fathers than anything else
@@MrDLiver It is hard indeed to find Patristic references (explicitly) connecting Peter and Eliakim or the explored parallel between Matthew-16 and Isaiah-22 in the Patristic literature. But it’s surely possible to find a great deal connecting the ideas of the “keys” and the “rock” with a specific kind of authority the Roman bishops uniquely held. In a sense, I’d say the papacy is not dependent on the antiquity of manifestations of any typological connection Peter-Eliakim stricly, albeit the argument must be taken seriously as the Christian-Rabbinic Jewish writings started to be even more accessible to one another; rather, it is evidently true to say the papacy is much more substantiated by the very references to the “keys” and the “rock” on themselves, which are (on the contrary) sufficiently voluminous in Greek, Latin and Syriac Patristics, just as in the documentation of Ecumenical Councils of the 1st millennium (mostly Ephesus/431, Chalcedon/451, Third Constantinople/680-681 and Second Nicea/787). Not even serious Protestants or Eastern Orthodox theologians dispute that assertion.
With that being said, I’ve found two more convincing Church Fathers on “this issue”, knowing that - having to be very honest here - still I couldn’t find Peter-Eliakim or Matthew 16 - Isaiah 22 in explicit terms.
The first to make an implicit case would be St Ephrem of Syria, Doctor of the Catholic Church:
_”Simon, my disciple, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I called you "rock" that you might sustain my entire building. You are the overseer of those who build a church for me on earth. If they should wish to build something forbidden, prevent them, for you are the foundation. You are the head of the fountain from which my doctrine is drawn. You are the head of my disciples. Through you all nations shall drink. Yours is that vivifying sweetness that I bestow. I have chosen you to be as a firstborn in my institution and heir to all my treasures. The keys of the kingdom I have given to you, and behold I make you prince over all my treasures”._ (S. Ephr. Hymn. et Serm., vol. 1, pr. 411).
Commentary: Even though Peter-Eliakim or Matthew 16 - Isaiah 22 don’t happen to come in a sort of explicit reference, St Ephrem mentions the one holding the “keys” of the kingdom as a prince over the ‘treasures’. This kind of poetic language most probably references the king’s palace, which is where the kingdom’s treasury could be found in the Ancient world.
The other I could find to make an implicit case is St John Cassian:
_”Let us consult the] greatest of disciples among disciples, and of teachers among teachers, who presided and ruled over the Roman Church, and held the chief place in the priesthood as he did in the faith. Tell us then, tell us, we pray, O Peter, you chief of Apostles, tell us how the Churches ought to believe in God. For it is right that you should teach us, as you were taught by the Lord, and that you should open to us the gate, of which you received the key. Shut out all those who try to overthrow the heavenly house: and those who are endeavouring to enter by secret holes and unlawful approaches: as it is clear that none can enter the gate of the kingdom save one to whom the key bestowed on the Churches is revealed by you”_ (Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation, book 3, chapter 12).
Commentary: Notice St John Cassian is utterly explicit in defining the Roman bishop as the head (and ruler, having the presidency, which is nothing like a honorific-only flattery) of the Church universal, and in presenting it - clearly - as a Petrine ministry instituted by the Lord. What is interesting here is that he references the “keys” in the sense of asking the Pope of Rome to “shut” heretics out of the “kingdom” (in this case, Nestorians) but this language “open-shut” is not used in Matthew, but it is indeed - and exactly- in Isaiah.
Those were my best shots, but it is hard to find clear-cut references of the Eliakim-Peter parallelism in Church Fathers. Maybe (it’s a speculation) because it was not habitual (which would be understandable) for the Church Fathers to have access to or interest in the Rabbinic sources in order to investigate the more “semitic” biblical exegesis of Matthew on the deeper level, and the “halakhic” literature to back it up therefore. The Catholic-Jewish dialogues and/or disputations were essentially happening only in the Late Medieval period (like the time when St Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides would wrestle theological themes, for instance).
@@masterchief8179
Yeah and that's why I don't think the argument should really be made as there isn't really enough Patristic evidence connecting Peter with Eliakim (there might be more uncovered in the future) but for now I think it's just best to let evidence from St Cassian and other church fathers stating St Peter as the chief apostle to stand on its own.
@@MrDLiver I definitely get your point. Yet the Roman Lectionary lines up Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 together for the Mass readings in the twenty-first week of year A (‘Lex orandi, lex credendi’), so it’s not that simple for a Catholic to absolutely drop it simply on the basis that there aren’t much early explicit connections in the Patristic era. Well, of course some of the greatest disputant minds against Protestantism (St Robert Bellarmine, Thomas Cardinal Cajetan and my favorite St Francis of Sales) all made the exact connection Peter-Eliakim explicitly in the 1500s but, quite frankly, there weren’t so much “papal polemics” ancient enough in ecclesiastical history. Prior to 863 I’d argue there are no true papal polemics (but some few polemical ecclesiastical facts concerning the papacy and how they are interpreted). I’d personally defend the importance of those exegetical parallels even if they are only implicit in the more ancient sources (when they ever appear); with that being said, I’ve seen some Protestants even bashing Cameron Bertuzzi’s conversion due to the fact that they thought this parallel unconvincing (as if it was all about it). So it shouldn’t be presented as a flagship argument for the papacy. I’s not. I agree 95% with you, I’d only say Catholics shouldn’t simply drop the argument but calibrate it to be much less used in inter-Christian polemics. The effect can be the exact opposite.
The keys are not what you think because the LORD commanded Peter three times saying, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17).
Therefore, Peter gave the keys of the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium.
And Peter reveals to the sheep what the keys are in 2 Peter 1:5-11. He writes, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep and we will never fall.
So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall?
If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group of men you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures.
"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11).
Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).
The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44).
... ... ...
I’m a Christadelphian, and even though our beliefs don’t exactly line up, I like that you have some manner of faith!
Here in the comments we spend a little too much time focusing on our disagreements (and maybe that’s ok) but I’d like to take this opportunity to wish you well as we navigate through life.
I’m a Christadelphian, and even though our beliefs don’t exactly line up, I like that you have some manner of faith!
Here in the comments we spend a little too much time focusing on our disagreements (and maybe that’s ok) but I’d like to take this opportunity to wish you well as we navigate through life.