Multicolored Lemur

Well-known member
Atheist / Agnostic
Nov 23, 2021
1,919
643

.

.

.

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 “And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros] and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [Greek, gates of Hades] shall not prevail against it.

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.”

.

.


—————

So whatever you fix, heal, change here on Earth …. Stays fixed, healed, changed, etc, in Heaven.

Sounds like a binary to me!

And in movies, I’ve certainly heard the phrase “Gates of Hell, as well as “The Keys to the Kingdom.”
 
Last edited:
I’ll tell, the Jesus character sounds like a poet who really enjoys a turn of phrase. A little like he’s an early Country&Western singer.

Jesus was probably a real guy, but a lot of lore and legend got put on him.
 
So whatever you fix, heal, change here on Earth …. Stays fixed, healed, changed, etc, in Heaven.
Please elaborate on what you mean here. Or how does this relate to salvation?
 
Please elaborate on what you mean here. Or how does this relate to salvation?
I’m making a connection that (1) Salvation is a Big Thing (2) which is made Permanent.

and certainly could be one of the things which Peter can “whatever you bind on earth,” if he so chooses with this new authority given to him.

Weird and unexpected that Jesus would give this kind of power to a human being. Catholics say this part is why Peter was the 1st Pope. Although it was m u c h . . la t e r that they came up with idea of Pope being infallible on doctrine … the First Vatican Council (1869–1870). Yes, really, look it up on AI if interested. This is called the Pope speaking “ex cathedra,” as opposed to the Pope just talking casually like a regular person, for example about baseball. And by the way, baseball was invented before this idea about the Pope being doctrinally infallible, which I guess makes it a modern idea.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
I’m making a connection that (1) Salvation is a Big Thing (2) which is made Permanent.

and certainly could be one of the things which Peter can “whatever you bind on earth,” if he so chooses with this new authority given to him.

Here are some of the good explanations I've run into so far:
In both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the syntax of the Greek text makes the meaning clear: “Whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens” (Matthew 16:19, Young’s Literal Translation). Or, as the Amplified Bible puts it, “Whatever you bind [forbid, declare to be improper and unlawful] on earth will have [already] been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose [permit, declare lawful] on earth will have [already] been loosed in heaven.”
- https://www.gotquestions.org/binding-loosing.html

Google search: what does it mean that Peter can bind things on Earth?
Google Ai responds: That Jesus gives Peter and the apostles the
authority to make decisions for the church community regarding doctrine and discipline. "Binding" and "loosing" were common Jewish terms for prohibiting or permitting something; thus, Peter could authorize or forbid certain practices and make judgments on church discipline. These earthly decisions are confirmed in heaven, meaning they are aligned with God's will for the community.


The meaning of “binding and loosing” in Matthew 16:19 has caused many students of the Bible to scratch their heads:

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. (Emphasis added)

Do those words of authority refer to binding Satan? Loosing someone from demonic bondage? Peter’s authority to admit people into heaven? Or something else?

In this excerpt adapted from Navigating Tough Texts: A Guide to Problem Passages in the New Testament, Murray J. Harris offers an explanation.

As the first confessor of the messiahship of Jesus (Matt 16:16), Peter was entrusted with “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19a)—that is, the privilege and responsibility of “proclaiming the good news of the kingdom” (Matt 4:23). In fulfilling this role, he was to use these “keys” to unlock the kingdom for certain people (“loosing”) and shut it up against others (“binding”).
Among the Jewish rabbis, “binding” and “loosing” were idiomatic terms to denote certain types of conduct that were either prohibited (“bound”) or permitted (“loosed”), forbidden or authorized. Jesus used these two categories when he explained to Peter what was involved in using the “keys.”
...
But it is not the case that all decisions made by church leaders, whatever their nature, will automatically gain divine approval. The direction of the Holy Spirit must be sought and received. For example, the verdict of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem concerning the conditions under which gentile believers could be received as fellow believers was issued as a decision that “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 5:4, “When you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present . . .”
Source: https://www.logos.com/grow/what-does-binding-and-loosing-mean-in-matthew-1619/
 
Last edited:
Weird and unexpected that Jesus would give this kind of power to a human being. Catholics say this part is why Peter was the 1st Pope. Although it was m u c h . . la t e r that they came up with idea of Pope being infallible on doctrine … the First Vatican Council (1869–1870). Yes, really, look it up on AI if interested. This is called the Pope speaking “ex cathedra,” as opposed to the Pope just talking casually like a regular person, for example about baseball. And by the way, baseball was invented before this idea about the Pope being doctrinally infallible, which I guess makes it a modern idea.
Didn't even know what it meant until I dug up some info. which I posted in the previous post.

If this grants the Apostle Peter power to do whatever he wants, then this is very dangerous. Even the "ex cathedra" or Papal Infallibility teaching is dangerous since it can be abused. I would want whatever they say or teach to be backed up with logic, evidence, or even direct revelation from God.

This is one reason why I stayed clear of Catholicism in my Christian days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
This is one reason why I stayed clear of Catholicism in my Christian days.
Now that you’re not so fervent, maybe you could cut Catholics so slack?

Most Catholics, I think go their credit, take the Bible with a light touch, as well as taking their religion itself with a bit of a light touch.

The one I’d step gingerly with are these large mega-churches in America which call themselves “non-denominational.” Often, they’re pretty fervent, and they build a cult of personality around the lead minister.
 
Last edited:
returntome_stills1.jpg

Return To Me

This is a romantic comedy from 2000. A man loses his wife in a car accident and he donates her organs, including her heart. He later meets and falls in love with the woman who received the heart. I understand this was more realistic when organ donations were run on a regional basis.

It’s a Catholic family.

She eventually figures it out and tells him, and he needs time. Anyway, Grace’s uncle says to her, pray while you’re in Rome, God can hear you better. He knows that’s not true. But he also knows that she needs to pray.
 
Now that you’re not so fervent, maybe you could cut Catholics so slack?

Most Catholics, I think go their credit, take the Bible with a light touch, as well as taking their religion itself with a bit of a light touch.
Not too much.

Their teachings are more organized and agreed upon because they have a central authority who has an infallibility mode. I think that restricts them in that they'll follow what he says, and seeminlgy even more than what the Bible says. I can never put my trust in any human, in that way, neeeever!

And that's about the only advantage I see with Protestantism over Catholicism. The former allows for more freethought, although they put their trust on the book being infallible, and not one man.
 
And that's about the only advantage I see with Protestantism over Catholicism. The former allows for more freethought, although they put their trust on the book being infallible, and not one man.
Alright, it sounds like Catholicism is not for you.

I’d just add, be careful of “non-denominational” mega-churches where a lot of … faith is put on the leader.