Bennett blasts pastor at Values Voter Summit
posted at 9:47 am on October 8, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Bill Bennett took the stage a few minutes ago at the Values Voters Summit and blasted one of the previous day’s speakers, to the surprise of the crowd. Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress told the media yesterday that evangelicals had a duty to reject Mormons and other non-Christians, and that Mormonism is considered a cult. Bennett responded today by exhorting the crowd, “Do not give voice to bigotry.” Furthermore, Bennett addressed his comments to Jeffress directly, saying. “You did Perry no good, sir,” and accused him of stepping on the other candidates as well. Bennett then joked that, as a Catholic, he can argue that he had it right the longest, to plenty of good-natured laughter.
The crowd reacted with some gasps, plenty of murmurs to Bennett’s slam at Jeffress, but also a significant amount of applause. While some in the crowd might agree with Jeffress as a theological point, there seems to be a strong current of thought that Jeffress crossed a line yesterday, at least politically. Bennett might not have intended to demonstrate how much diversity of thought there is at the Values Voters Summit, but it certainly delivered that message.
Update: Jeffress is not the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, although he is a significant leader among Southern Baptists. The SBC president is Bryan Wright. Thanks to Luke G for the correction; I misunderstood Jeffress’ introduction yesterday, which listed him as an SBC “leader.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Yer right. I would not say the things at a rally of “values voters” or whatever it was, simply because it would devolve into trading insults about one another’s faiths – as it has and does so deliciously on Hot Air.
It’s fun here. It’s counter productive in a venue dedicated to how best to advance the conservative cause. I support Bennett’s remark, and would vote for Romney, while I find Romney’s religion awful. I don’t know how more tolerant and open minded a guy can be if I don’t say so meself.
Akzed on October 8, 2011 at 5:52 PM
Dunno what a Texas Baptist is.
Slavery was legal on every continent when Virginia outlawed the importation of slaves. What’s your point?
Akzed on October 8, 2011 at 5:54 PM
I’m not offering any defense of the Mormon church or its founding and I wouldn’t care to. I am defending tolerance and rationality. It is they who are your mortal enemies, not the Mormons or their church.
MJBrutus on October 8, 2011 at 6:03 PM
But speaking of blacks and Mormonism:
“I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. ‘Darkies’ are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church,” Look magazine, October 22, 1963.
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…
“Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the ‘servants of servants;’ and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree,” -Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, 7:290).
There is nothing in the Bible remotely like this regarding blacks. In fact, Aaron and Miriam were given leprosy for complaining that Moses took an Ethiopian wife.
The abolitionist movement was entirely Christian. I can’t recall any notable atheists involved in it, come to think of it.
Akzed on October 8, 2011 at 6:07 PM
Well, there was this thing we call the “Civil War” having to do with another thing we call “slavery”. You’d really have to read up on it to get the point.
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 6:08 PM
Did you know how the Mormons founded Salt Lake City?
If you don’t, it was when Smith and Young discovered the big lake.
Smith said, “This is perfect! Nothing to do here but fish and f– (pitch woo).”
Young said, “Quick! Salt the lake.”
MJBrutus on October 8, 2011 at 6:13 PM
Now, now, I get along with them thar evil Mormons pretty well, just as I do with any person of good will.
I wouldn’t agree with them on how many angels can dance on the head of pin, but then again I don’t have to, lol. If they it’s 100 and I figure it’s 200, tain’t no skin offa my schnoz.
And the only reason I would mention Texas Baptists and slavery, is as a glass house warning. Though I am surprised to see somebody claim they aren’t familiar with those tempora and mores. It’s not as if it is a secret:
A Texas Baptist history sourcebook
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 6:25 PM
How many witches did the Mormons burn at the stake?
MJBrutus on October 8, 2011 at 6:28 PM
Yeah, but them thar turribel Mormons burn steak! You can’t tell me that’s right!!
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM
And every cent of it his own money!!(gasp).
As opposed to wasting a couple trillion of the taxpayers cash.
Don’t really think you are in any position to judge.
Siddhartha Vicious on October 8, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Congrats Mr. Bennett for saying what needed to be said.
scotash on October 8, 2011 at 6:59 PM
A voice of reason was indeed good to hear. Perry should have manned up and delivered the speech Bennett did.
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 7:05 PM
I won’t blame Perry for the omission. But I will applaud Romney for handling it beautifully.
Romney slammed this man:
I just have to ask, just what use does America have for this “Values Voter Summit?” Who needs or wants any part of this kind of riff raff?
MJBrutus on October 8, 2011 at 7:20 PM
Thanks Bennett:
Doesn’t it kind of remind you of the question about satan? It gives
perry plausible deniability, but the damage is out there.
The EPA is shutting down power plants (28 giga whatever), prices will skyrocket, people will die;
fast & furious is killing Americans and a couple of hundred Mexicans thanks to this admin letting guns walk across the border (2,000) with our tax money;
solydra is/was a mess, but “not all companies will succeed” the Pres says, but it’s not his money – 1/2 billion that is;
7 billion was thrown out on Friday to other solar companies or the money would have go back to the gov!
But we are concerned about “how many angels can sit on the head of a pin”.
Dems don’t have to do anything. We will defeat ourselves!
Bambi on October 8, 2011 at 7:38 PM
I think it’s just yet another national stage amateur hour display of the Perry camp’s inability to handle damage control.
I think such things have times and places for rational debate and discussion. But this clown is an over the top idiot asshat who has zero sense of even basic propriety to know the right times and places. That’s even if he had even a minimum of intellect to address such questions rationally.
What I believe ticks many folks of the Christian stripe off about him is that he actually has the audacity to believe he has the say as to who gets to pass through the Pearly Gates.
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 7:39 PM
A few years ago I read some early Christian apologetics which were written to defend the new religion against criticisms from Romans. They disclose what those accusations were. One of the major ones was that Christianity is a cult, since it was based on the worship of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
In the 1980s the Southern Baptist Convention discovered that as many as 20% of its members had converted to the LDS faith and they undertook a crusade to spread fear and mistrust of it. Part of that effort was the argument that because the LDS church teaches that God the Father, Jesus his son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, members of the Godhead, contrary to the belief that they are all part of the same entity. This is quite a technical theological issue that matters little to most people. They also denounce Mormon beliefs such as modern revelations and living prophets like those who lead the Church in the New Testament times, and the corollary that God has revealed additional scriptures revealed in our era.
Article 6 of the Constitution forbids any religious test for any office, and while Pastors like Mr. Jeffords claim to support the Constitution, they dishonor it by urging people to vote based on a person’s faith.
The LDS faith is not a cult. In fact, it teaches that We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may, [and w]e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. The church also teaches that the principles in the Constitution were established by God through men whom he raised up for that very purpose.
People should reads Romney’s website and listen to his speeches and base their votes on his positions on the issues and his proposals, not on what others, particularly anti-Mormons, say about him.
flataffect on October 8, 2011 at 7:57 PM
Define bigotry, Gambling Man.
Not that I care what any self-appointed leader thinks (I don’t vote on religion), but Bennett needs to look over that long history of bigotry he so giddily brags about.
mankai on October 8, 2011 at 8:08 PM
It amazes me how many people confuse Jeffress w/ the guy that Romney was talking about. Either ignorantly of maliciously.
But that guy Romney called out is a knuckledragger, the type of guy who embarrasses anyone and any cause associated with him.
swamp_yankee on October 8, 2011 at 8:11 PM
I hope Mr. Bennett is cured of his gambling addiction. I have several of his books. In any event, Mormon leaders should publicly recant the doctrines that stand in direct conflict with Orthodox Christianity the way they recanted the one that said Black Africans are inferior people and unworthy of the priesthood. Here are a few more:
– Jesus Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse between God and the Virgin Mary.
– The Bible is filled with errors and superseded by the Book of Mormon and the words of all Mormon prophets.
– God was once human like us, dwelling on earth, and “became God” through faith and good works — just as we can do ourselves.
– Jesus’ death and resurrection secured only the opportunity for us to attain salvation through our own good works — salvation is not by faith in Christ.
…and much, much more that contradicts the explicit teaching of God’s Word.
Christianity teaches that God has no body, He is Spirit, and Jesus Christ was conceived by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (not intercourse with “Father God”) with no physical contact, a true miracle, so there is a fundamental disconnect in basic foundational doctrine between Christianity and Mormonism.
Mormons probably don’t even know that is part of their doctrine. Mormons generally live very moral lives and do good works wherever they go, and any Mormon would be far superior to the Anti-American, Black-Liberation, Marxist currently occupying the White House.
opaobie on October 8, 2011 at 8:51 PM
flataffect: I found your second paragraph to be most interesting, because its abstruse nature almost perfectly recaps some of Christianity’s early mortal controversies. See also: Arian/Trinitarian.
One of my favorite historians, John Julius Norwich, notes somewhere in his three-volume history of the Byzantine Empire, that they almost destroyed themselves from within on several occasions, based on issues that seem almost unbelievably trivial to today’s observers. See also: monophysitism, the filioque controversy, iconoclasm, etc. etc.
Religion! Is there anything it cannot do?
HTL on October 8, 2011 at 8:52 PM
Thanks to someone above for the link to Glenn Beck’s talk at this same forum. If anyone is interested and thinks Glenn hides his religion, please listen to the talk.
At the end he got a standing ovation.
Thanks flateffect = nice to read your response.
Bambi on October 8, 2011 at 9:06 PM
Why should Perry alienate his evangelical supporters by slamming Jeffress for what he is within his constitutional right to say?
Romney has every right to respond to Jeffress if he feels slighted.
TheRightMan on October 8, 2011 at 9:41 PM
Wow. Everything you said is completely, utterly false. “Mormons dont even know this is part of what they believe?!” Um are you KIDDING me! We know what we believe and everything, literally everything you said is false.
1. Just wrong and sick
2. We believe the bible to be the absolute word of god that is not superseded by anything. So so ignorant. We belive the book of mormon as another testament of Christ, that doesnt supersede anything! This entire year in my ward we are studying just the new Testament, so so wrong.
3. wrong, flat out
4. We believe faith without works is dead, we believe in repentance, but that if you do not repent for your sins you are not forgiven for them that you must repent. We believe charity is the pure love of Christ and expect all members to engage in charitable works toward all mankind, just like Christ taught. But salvation can only be attained through absolute faith in Christ and you show this faith by your actions. You are right, we dont believe you can just say “Hey I accept Christ” and then live however you want without consequences.
I dont bother to analyze baptists or any other faith, dont try to analyze mine, you do no know what your talking about.
nswider on October 8, 2011 at 9:43 PM
Why? Even if they did hold the beliefs you just listed – which seems rather unlikely, based on nswider’s comment – why would you tell a religion’s leaders to publicly recant its core theological beliefs? Why should they listen to you? Why shouldn’t Orthodox Christians recant their beliefs in favor of the ones you just listed instead?
RINO in Name Only on October 8, 2011 at 10:18 PM
“Better the Sultan’s turban than a cardinal’s hat!!!”
And look how well that worked out for the Greeks.
HTL on October 8, 2011 at 10:29 PM
Not to get on your whole comment content, but on the above snippet; doesn’t Jesus have a body (assuming you’re positing Him as God)?
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Religions who’s strongest tenets include forgiveness and a common God should appreciate their commonalities a great deal more than their differences.
Speakup on October 8, 2011 at 10:41 PM
I agree that it is absolutely false doctrine to live by, but it is current Mormon Doctrine — Revelations and Pronouncements dating back to Brigham Young. Get a copy of “The Mormon Mirage” by Latayne C. Scott at your favorite bookseller.
If they don’t recant it, they come off looking like a cult. Orthodox Christianity has proven itself over the centuries, including what happens to those who try to pervert it for their own ends and those who disobey it…wait till you see what happens in the final chapter!!
Excellent question. He indwelt a body of flesh temporarily in order to walk among man, but He is a spirit. The part of Him that was man was fully man during His time on earth, and that mortal body was crucified and died just like any other mortal would have. The part of Him that is spirit is spirit for eternity. He reappeared in a “glorified” body after His crucifixion for the benefit of His followers and the more than 500 witnesses who saw Him ascend into Heaven. Most people can “aprehend” this concept, “fully man while at the same time, fully God”…few if any can actually comprehend it.
opaobie on October 8, 2011 at 10:52 PM
So Jesus is a spirit being now, is that right? I’m not sure that view is shared by other traditional orthodox Christians. In fact, I believe I’ve heard that as one of the critiques against assumed cultic groups.
It would seem, from the biblical record, he had a human-physical body after the resurrection, e.g. his offer to Thomas. If so, when/where did He dump it when he was done with it?
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 11:04 PM
The real life St. Nicholaus (not the simplified version that became Santa Claus) was a very orthodox Bishop who defended the Trinity. At one Council (Nicaea?) he actually punched an Arian bishop during an argument. lol Guess he had a bit of St. Paul’s fervor and temperament. lol
That said, while half of the Bishops of the day were Arian (under penalty of death from the Emperor) they recanted afterward when their lives weren’t at stake. The people themselves (the great masses of Christians) did not fall into the heresy of Arianism. They always believed the truth of the Trinity passed down from Apostolic times.
Whether a Christian says the Creed or not, all Christians believe in the Trinity. All 3 major branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism) have always believed in the Trinity since the days of the Apostles.
As others have pointed out, Mormons do not share the same beliefs as traditional Christians do about the Trinity and the origins of God the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. They also believe odd things about the origins of Satan and his relation to the Father and Christ.
Mormons are good people who love God the Father and Christ, but simply do not understand Him properly. They are also usually exemplary citizens of this country.
In a close race against Obama, Romney’s Mormonism might make a difference with some Christians who might stay home. But I think most Christians in toss up states won’t care.
I don’t want Romney for many, many reasons. But if he is the nominee, I will have his bumper sticker on my car.
Elisa on October 8, 2011 at 11:27 PM
For something so important it would have been nice if the Apostles had expounded on it as such, much less have mentioned the Trinity.
whatcat on October 8, 2011 at 11:37 PM
It wasn’t a Civil War, which is a war to seize control of a nation. It was a war over states trying to secede from the Union. And it wasn’t about slavery. That was just one of multiple topics of disagreement. Fundamentally, it was a war over whether states had a right to secede from the Union or not.
The trouble with “reading up” on many things is you’re often as likely to absorb misinformation as you are to absorb the facts. It takes extra effort to really understand an issue.
As Reagan said, “The problem isn’t what you don’t know. It’s what you do know that just ain’t so.”
There Goes The Neighborhood on October 8, 2011 at 11:41 PM
The pastor should never have brought the whole issue up in the first place. It had no bearing in a political discussion, and voting for someone you believe reflects your values should be understood anyway.
Now, we have Bennett jumping in to misapply the word “bigotry” to the position that Mormonism is a cult. That trivializes the whole disagreement as if it’s nothing more than dislike of people who believe differently.
Mormonism as a system of belief rejected orthodox Christianity, completely changed the concept of who God is, and who Jesus was, created new scriptures, declared a new prophet, created a new organization, and declared that all forms of Christianity then in existence were abominations.
Now, having found it more advantageous to present themselves as Christians, they try to bury all their substantive doctrinal differences and relabel themselves as just another form of Christianity. Furthermore, they like to label anyone who doesn’t accept this whitewash as bigots.
But according to the official First Vision of Joseph Smith, God the Father and God the Son both appeared physically before Joseph Smith and told him not to join himself to any church, because all churches were abominations in the sight of God. You may well say that was over 150 years ago, but it’s still part of official Mormon Doctrine to this day. When the Mormons as a group renounce the statement they claim was made by God Himself that other churches are abominations, then we can talk. But I think you can see how that might be problematic for them.
There Goes The Neighborhood on October 8, 2011 at 11:55 PM
I agree with you that the pastor shouldn’t have brought that up and that Bennett shouldn’t have called him a bigot.
Bennett is Catholic like I am. The Catholic Church will not re-Baptize any Christian who is properly baptized in the Name of the Trinity, including all traditional Protestants and Trinitarian non-denominationalists. Because we believe in one baptism that leaves an indelible mark on a soul. But Mormons must be baptized again upon conversion according to Bennett’s Church. Because they do not believe in the Trinity like traditional Christians do.
Elisa on October 9, 2011 at 12:09 AM
Huckabee was probably stirring the pot on Mormon beliefs, but the official Mormon position is that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers. Note the emphasis.
Huckabee didn’t smear Romney or Mormons. That is their actual belief. He did, however, put a spotlight on a belief they don’t like having to explain. The problem is that it requires explaining what they mean by spirit brothers, and why Jesus and Lucifer would be spirit brothers. And, of course, it makes it far more awkward to present Mormonism as just another branch of Christianity when it contains doctrines that don’t sound Christian at all.
Did he do it for political advantage? I’m sure he did.
There Goes The Neighborhood on October 9, 2011 at 12:13 AM
When some guy demands you vote for his guy because of his guy’s fiath and to reject the other guy because of the other guy’s faith, that’s bigotry – and quite trivial bigotry at that. If it were a theological council convened for determining acceptable religious beliefs and denouncing heretics, it might have been a different. But as it stands Jeffress reveled in his RevWright moment while Perry missed his Sister Soulja moment.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 12:13 AM
How do you know they didn’t expound on it? Not everything Jesus and the Apostles said was written down in the books that survived to become the New Testament.
The oral Teachings of the Apostles, the Sacred Tradition handed down, is also truth from the Holy Spirit the oral Word of God, and all Christians once believed this. The Trinity (by name or unnamed) was one of those truths handed down from earliest times.
Elisa on October 9, 2011 at 12:13 AM
The Mormon at my job is a racist SOB. I love the fact that his manager is a black woman.
I voted for Romney over McCain in the last primary but I had not done alot of research into Mormon views on race. The more I find the less I like. The cult is a racist one. Also anyone that repeatedly begins a sentence with “Brighman Young says…” is not in a religion.
Theworldisnotenough on October 9, 2011 at 12:20 AM
As “Reverend” Jeffress has not let Bill or you off the hook just for being Catholic, I’d say Bennett had a good a right as anyone to call him out on it:
Jeffress: Satan Behind Catholic Church (YouTube)
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 12:21 AM
Matthew 12:50
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
I bet that is not in the mormon bible.
Theworldisnotenough on October 9, 2011 at 12:27 AM
I’m speaking of the source material, i.e. the New Testament. Outside of that, you had opinions, as you’ve noted. But since there were multiple opinions, councils had to set up, at least several centuries after Christ. But, again, in the source material – the accounts of those who walked with Jesus and who were His apostles – there is no teaching on the Trinity concept. That was extrapolated and formulated at a later date.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 12:28 AM
I’ll pass on the video (don’t want to get annoyed), but it wouldn’t surprise me that the man thinks the Catholic Church is a cult.
Did he mention the Whore of Babylon at all? lol
Good night and God bless us all.
Elisa on October 9, 2011 at 12:29 AM
Actually, it is.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 12:31 AM
From a fellow Baptist:
That’s the same type of bigotry that Huckabee was guilty of, in my opinion, in 2008. That cost Romney the nomination and we ended up with Comrade Numbnuts. This can’t happen again. This nation won’t survive if it does.
BTW, Perry really didn’t need one more nail in his coffin. Thanx Pastor Jeffress.
Dr Bob on October 9, 2011 at 12:32 AM
“Babylon Mystery Religion” – a cult, you worship a fish god named Dagon apparently, along with a “Jesus of Satan”.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 12:34 AM
Ooops, gotta wash out my ears. He said it’s the “genius of Satan” ( not “Jesus”). Oy.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 12:37 AM
I suppose it would be a good and wonderful thing if we became a theocracy and ordered that everyone praise God and keep his commandments and add some more commandments that we feel he would much approve of. We could probably get up to at least a hundred commandments in no time. But if we are to become a theocracy I would like better to understand the ways of the Lord. Why did He give Steve Jobs cancer? To keep him from being bored and make him good? But he died and so it couldn’t make him good. I suppose it was for some other reason that only God would ever understand. We know it must have been for a good and wise and merciful reason, whatever it was. Did He make the roof fall in on the kindly stranger who was trying to save the crippled woman from the fire? Don’t ask me why, because I don’t know. I only know it was to discipline him or to show him a more enlightened path. Reverend Burgess said in his sermon that billions of little creatures are sent into us to give us cholera, and typhoid and other sicknesses and the Lord must send them. He must educate and keep us from being bored and discipline us. And then there was the lightning that come last week and struck the new church, and burnt it down. It must have been to educate and discipline the church and make the church better. I suppose so as He always knows what’s best. But it killed a hog that wasn’t doing anything. Was it to educate and discipline the hog? Must have been. Mr. Hollister says wasps catch spiders and cram them down into their nests in the ground alive and there they live and suffer for days and days with the wasps chewing on them to make them feel pain and so become good and religious and praise God for His infinite mercies. I think Mr. Hollister is ever so kind for when I asked him if he would treat a spider like that, he said he hoped to be damned if he would. I suppose he will be damned for unenlightened talk like that.
InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on October 9, 2011 at 12:48 AM
That stretches the definition of bigotry way too far. It’s possible to disagree without descending into hatred or bigotry. Disagreement is a perfectly good reason not to vote for someone.
Regardless, I’m not voting for a candidate for pastor, but a candidate for president. While it goes without saying that I will take into account differences in beliefs and what impact they have on the candidate as a choice for president, I’m looking for a lot more than that.
I reject Romney for many reasons. His Mormon faith isn’t really on that list. I was ready to vote for him in 2008, but it’s much more clear now that he was just pretending to be a conservative back then. The mask having been removed, he’s not getting my vote. Huntsman would be a better choice, if barely. At least he never pretended to be conservative just to get elected.
There Goes The Neighborhood on October 9, 2011 at 12:52 AM
Yes, you are right, Jesus now has a Glorified body, and it is the scars on that body that will help us recognize Him when we get to Heaven. I actually oversimplified earlier to emphasize the distinction between Christian doctrine and Mormon doctrine. Mormon doctrine says “Father God” started out as a man and became a god through his good works. Christian doctrine says God has always been God, and the personage of the Trinity whose name is Jesus (He has many other names, Counselor, Son of Man, etc.) came to earth and temporarily took on a fleshly body to become a sacrifice for man’s sins.
I didn’t want to turn my previous answer into a sermon, but remember I said Jesus was “fully man and fully God”. In I Corinthians Chapter 15, the explanation of Jesus’ glorified body is given. Yes, Jesus now has a Glorified body, unlike any other in the universe, that will not ever die the way flesh and blood bodies die, and our fleshly bodies will be transformed after we die. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not have bodies, only Jesus, so I suppose you could say this is another aspect of one Person of the Trinity that differentiates Jesus from the other two personages of the Trinity.
opaobie on October 9, 2011 at 12:57 AM
As contrary to what the left likes to say about many of the religious right, most of them are not bigots.
They would vote for Romney in the general election.
V-rod on October 9, 2011 at 1:04 AM
The word Trinity isn’t mentioned, but the teaching is clearly in the Bible. But like every other clear teaching from the Bible, there will always be some who will twist it and change it, according to their PRIVATE interpretation, when they do not follow the oral Sacred Teaching handed down through the Church.
There is plenty of Scripture that denies Mormon beliefs in the origin of God, that there were other gods before God the Father, in whether we will all become gods and supports the traditional belief in Christianity and the Nature of God. And also the earliest Christian writings by Bishops in good standing hand picked by the Apostles. Just because people will misinterpret Scripture, doesn’t mean the Church didn’t teach it early on or that it is clearly written in the Bible.
Mormons are good people, but I quote these things to show that the Bible teaches otherwise. Traditional Christianity is clearly in the Bible.
Isaiah 43:10-14:
“You are my witnesses, says the LORD, my servants whom I have chosen To know and believe in me and understand that it is I. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none. It is I, I the LORD; there is no savior but me. . . . yes, from eternity I am He.”
Isaiah 44:6:
“Thus says the LORD, Israel’s King and redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; there is no God but me.”
Isaiah 45:22:
“Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of the earth, for I am God; there is no other!
Deuteronomy 6:4:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one LORD.”
Mark12:29:
“Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
Jesus says in Revelation 1:17:
“When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead. He touched me with his right hand and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.”
As I quoted before:
John 1:1-18
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.
What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . .
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. . . . .
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.”
Genesis 1:26: “Let US make man in OUR image and likeness.”
Us and Our (plural) image and likeness (singular) This is the same in the Hebrew. The Trinity was there from the beginning. God used the plural and singular when speaking of Himself.
Jesus many times in Scripture uses the “I AM” in reference to Himself. Calling Himself not only a God, but the God who spoke to Moses. LORD, adonai.
John 8:58:
“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.”
John 18:5-6:
“They answered him, “Jesus the Nazorean.” He said to them, “I AM.” Judas his betrayer was also with them. When he said to them, “I AM,” they turned away and fell to the ground.”
In John 5:18:
“For this reason the Jews tried all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but he also called God his own father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL TO GOD.”
They weren’t upset that Jesus was making Himself A God. They were upset He was making Himself equal to THE God. Mormons believe that God the Son is inferior to God the Father. Yet Jesus made Himself “equal to God.”
When “Thomas answered and said to him, “MY LORD AND MY GOD!” In John 20, do you really believe that St. Thomas (as a Jew) was thinking multiple gods? Jesus being a second god or one of maybe millions of gods? “My God” Who was Thomas’ God? The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David. God the Father. The one true God.
And when in Luke 1, Elizabeth (inspired by the Holy Spirit) called Mary, “the mother of my Lord” who was Elizabeth’s Lord? (A Jewish woman would never use the name of God. She would say, “Lord.”) Elizabeth was talking about the same God Thomas was talking about. The Old Testament God. God the Son was not yet made manifest to Elizabeth in that way. He was just conceived and Elizabeth did not know Him as God the Son. She only knew of the one God of Israel. Yet, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth says that the baby in Mary’s womb was her Lord, the God of Israel.
And while we are on Luke Chapter 1. It says that the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary and Mary conceived Jesus. And Matthew’s Gospel says, “she was found with child through the holy Spirit. . . . For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.”
It doesn’t say that God the Father had intercourse with Mary. Even if there were 3 gods, then Mormons have the wrong one in Jesus’ conception. Scripture clearly says the Holy Spirit, not God the Father. Of course, since Christians believe all 3 Persons are one, then we have no problem with the Holy Spirit “overshadowing” Mary, yet God the Father is the Father of God the Son.
Also Scripture and the early Church Fathers tell us that Mary remained a virgin, even after conceiving Jesus. Matthew: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” God did not have actual intercourse with Mary. Only pagan religions believed their pagan gods had intercourse with humans.
In fact, Catholics and maybe most Christians believe that “the woman” of Genesis 3 and of Revelation 12 is Mary, not just Eve. “I will put enmity between your seed and her seed.” No where else in all of Scripture does it talk about a woman having “seed.” Only men have seed. But in Jesus’ case, it would fit. Because He took all His DNA, all his humanity from Mary.
And nowhere in Scripture does it talk about God the Father first creating the spiritual Jesus in Heaven with God’s Heavenly wife (I guess some sort of goddess) and then creating Jesus’ body with Mary. Jesus did not have 2 Fathers. On that we agree, I think. Well, Jesus did not have 2 mothers either. One Heavenly and one earthly. Please show me anywhere in Scripture or in the Early Church Fathers that says this.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes Tertullian (late 2nd century) saying, “The Supreme Being must be unique, without equal. . . If God is not one, he is not God.”
St. Clement of Rome around 80AD (3rd Bishop of Rome): “”What think you, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen”
Here is St. Ignatius of Antioch again in his letter to the Philadelphians 110AD:
“There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; one who is, and there is no other besides him, the only true [God]. For ‘the Lord your God,’ says [the Scripture], ‘is one Lord’ [Deut. 6:4]. . . . And there is also one Son, God the Word. . . . And there is also one Paraclete”
These early fathers of the Church are saying that there is only one God. A lesser god would still be a god. They are saying only one God. So when it says there is only one Son and that the Son is God the Word, then He would have to be the same one God. Ignatius says one God and Father. Again one God, yet he adds “and Father.” He is not saying that the Father is not God. He is saying that the Father is a manifested Person of the one God.
St. Ignatius of Antioch (Bishop in good standing hand picked by St. Peter)
around 110AD
Letter to the Ephesians (Ch7 and Ch19):
“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible— even Jesus Christ our Lord. . . .
God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.”
Elisa on October 9, 2011 at 1:05 AM
got to run good night
Elisa on October 9, 2011 at 1:06 AM
How could you NOT hear of Pastor Jeffress!? This guy has been telling people not to vote for Mitt Romney ever since Mitt decided to run in the 2008 election. And he’s been saying that for years after the election.
Robert Jeffress position/belief towards Mormon is so well known that its impossible to believe the Perry camp didn’t know what he was about when they agreed to let him introduce Perry to the crowd at the Value Voters Summit.
Conservative Samizdat on October 9, 2011 at 1:09 AM
Actually, it’s read into the bible – as I said, it was extrapolated at a much later date.
Again, an extremely late reading of something into an English translation that just isn’t there. If it were there, it would have been known long, long before in the thousands of years before Christ. Written in their own language, it wouldn’t take even an ancient Hebrew scholar to notice it, “Wow! There’s more than one God there!”. Even a novice would have seen that. Surely a Trinity would stick out like a sore thumb.
Likewise with the “I am” thing, it’s reading something into an English translation that isn’t there. Would be the same as if you asked your kids “Who’s going with me to the store?” and little Johnny declares “I AM!!”. Johnny is not making a claim to deity.
Where you are lacking is in the area of not being knowledgeable in the original languages, the importance of context, and in being dependent on Middle or Modern English for your understanding.
For example – I imagine you know of this passage from Matthew 16?
“When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I suspect you may take that, as the Church holds it, to be read as where Jesus has declared Peter to be the first Pope and the Catholic Church is established?
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 1:44 AM
A note to my mormon friends: you know how Republicans are always talking about this “christian nation?” Yeah… they don’t think you’re christian. There’s a better way, a way that doesn’t care about religious differences, that only cares about dollar and cents and how much of them the government is spending. It’s not the Republicans.
RightOFLeft on October 9, 2011 at 1:48 AM
There’s only two logical conclusions one can come up with:
1. Perry’s team is THAT incompetent as to not know Jeffress would say something embarrassing about Mormons.
2. Perry’s team intended to play the Mormon card by proxy.
Neither are flattering to Perry. Judging from the weak mouthed attempt to correct Jeffress from the Perry team, it’s pretty obvious which was more likely.
This is going to backfire hard on Perry. It’s just too transparent. I guess desperation makes people do desperate things.
haner on October 9, 2011 at 3:47 AM
There was nothing to correct. One can argue whether Jeffress picked the wrong time and place to make his comments, but content-wise he was spot on.
tommyboy on October 9, 2011 at 7:29 AM
My point with Mr. Bennett is his use of the word bigotry. To call a Christian a bigot because he believes in his own doctrine and church over another doctrine and church is pandering and divisive. So what if some Baptist thinks Mormons are going to hell and are in a cult. Why is that so freaking surprising?
Some people are so freaking eager to point their fingers are what they think are easy targets within their own party and scream “Bigot Racist!” so they can appear so reasonable!
Jeffress may have said something stupid.. but having those beliefs are not bigotry!
JellyToast on October 9, 2011 at 8:42 AM
The bigotry is in encouraging others to not vote for a Mormon candidate. It is bigotry because Mitt has not injected religion in to his policy making and shows no signs of doing so. It is bigotry because he is not judging Romney on what he says or does or has done but only by what god he prays to.
His remarks are the polar opposite of what this nation stands for. Freedom of conscience, equality and opportunity. Our founders understood the pernicious effects of religious bigotry and did what they could to exclude it from our laws and encourage our citizenry to reject it. Malicious, prejudicial pariahs like these preachers (Jeffress and Fischer) have no place in the GOP.
MJBrutus on October 9, 2011 at 8:52 AM
Am I the only one who is absolutely loving this Clash of the Superstitions?
I don’t give a toss about what deity Romney, Perry or Obama believe in. I’ll just be overjoyed if this issue splits the Christian vote for the Republican candidate, easing the President’s re-election. I hope Jeffress keeps talking. I hope he continues to stir the pot.
I love the sound of Bible thumping in the morning!
chumpThreads on October 9, 2011 at 8:54 AM
I don’t consider it bigotry. I do consider it stupid.
I have dealt with the same kind of thinking among other Christians I know. People who are single issue, for example. I am strongly pro-life.. but there are Christians who would vote for a a completely lib/socialist Democrat posing as a pro-lifer over a conservative Republican who leans pro-choice even if it meant the difference between Republicans winning control of congress. It is stupid! Plain stupid! I have had this discussion with Christians more than once. One told me I was going to hell for thinking differently than he did. He flat out told me (back when Pat Robertson was running in the primaries) if I didn’t vote for Pat I was going to hell! He told me (this guy is in every other sense, a salt of the earth guy) that it was his duty to vote Christian first and who won was up to God! Needless to say.. we’re not that close anymore.
But this Jeffress guy has as much right to urge someone to vote for a candidate or against a candidate because of his religious convictions and is no more a bigot than someone else who supports one candidate over another for different kinds of reasons! Jeffress made his remarks in a hallway. Bennett took the stage in front of an audience and called him a bigot.
Maybe I am just a little sensitive about this “Can’t we all just get along” mentality”… this “we are all God’s little children and we are all just one little world so if you believe in your doctrine over another you are a bigot!”
That is the mentality I am against.
JellyToast on October 9, 2011 at 9:19 AM
You’ve described two different kinds of stupidity. While I find single issue voters like the ones who will only vote for pro-life to be dumb, they are not bigots because of that. Their decision is based on a matter of public policy.
Jeffress and the others have a right to be bigots. Nobody is contesting that. One’s religious convictions can make one a bigot. Some religions preach bigotry as a virtue (witness various strains of Islam or some of these Values Voter speakers). That does not excuse the adherent from being a bigot and called for it. We’re not talking about rights here we’re talking about opprobrium for unacceptable remarks.
MJBrutus on October 9, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Don’t know what your point is in directing that to me. The Abolitionist movement was entirely Christian. Can’t think of one notable atheist involved.
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 12:51 PM
So was the prohibition movement. In fact, so was slavery which the abolitionists got abolished.
MJBrutus on October 9, 2011 at 1:00 PM
AM
The atheist web site you got that from is wrong. Shockah!
The phonetic Hebrew is bə·ṣal·mê·nū kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū . The “nu” at the ends of those words is first person plural.
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM
It is now my dreary duty to move from correcting the lies of an atheist to watching the Eagles.
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Ignore the AM, dunno where that came from.
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM
Like the ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘freedom of speech means zero consequences for anything I choose to say’ nitwits, you simply don’t get it.
Nothing about what this pastor said is remotely problematic from an Article 6 or Constitutional perspective – unless you’re suggesting that this pastor *is* the federal government trying to keep Romney out of office because of his religion.
The pastor is an individual, and the last time I checked individuals are still allowed to have an opinion about who they want as their elected representatives, and are allowed to express that opinion if they wish.
Please acknowledge that you realize the difference.
Midas on October 9, 2011 at 1:38 PM
I won’t, but not because of his religion.
Like Obama, my problems are not of a racial/religious nature with regard to who is fit for office, but of policies and leadership practices – of which both Obama and Romney favor things to which I am decidedly against.
Midas on October 9, 2011 at 1:48 PM
Sorry to interrupt fantasy and your raging at strawmen – but if you need to depend on any website due your obvious lack of biblical education and experience, try Judaism 101. When you find the Jewish belief in some kind of multiple deity (much less “The Trinity”)extracted from anything in the Torah, let me know. However, just fact alone that nobody even made such a claim until well after Jesus’ time should serve as a clue.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 2:23 PM
The Trinity isn’t a “multiple deity”, just FYI.
Boxy_Brown on October 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM
By his recent defense of his bigotry one might also figure his sect of Christianity is a cult, as well. We do not need his kind in America. And Perry is taking entirely too much time weigh in against this bigotry. That leads me to question whether or not I’d like to see Perry within 200 miles of the White House.
Extreme “Conservative” bigotry is what got me to vote for Clinton rather than 41. I cannot emphasize how much I despise bigotry, including classical liberal bigotry.
{^_^}
herself on October 9, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Eh, whatever term you prefer is fine by me. Interestingly enough, here’s the earliest known depiction of “The Trinity” – from the era when it was being developed as a doctrine.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Clinton, like Jimmy Carter and Jeffress here, were all Southern Born Again Baptists. Could you imagine how bad they would have been if the weren’t adherents of that Only True Denomination? We dodged some bullets there. :)
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 4:18 PM
First, I’m an Anglican priest, genius. Second, St. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, and he made such claims – that YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the same God as Christians believe in, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
How’s this grab ya?
In Gen. 18:1-3 we read: And the LORD appeared unto [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My LORD, if now I have found favour in thy sight…
Mormons reject the Holy Trinity, so they also reject the Christian understanding that these OT passages presage the Holy Trinity. So you have a lot in common with them.
Straw man? How so? The Hebrew is first person plural as I showed. It is there in the Hebrew. It is not an interpretation but an accurate translation of the original language.
The Hebrews understand/stood that as “the plural of majesty” a la Queen Victoria: “We are not amused.” With the subsequent revelation of the Holy Trinity in the New Testament, the Old Testament becomes more clearly understood. It was the Holy Trinity with whom Abraham had to do.
I hope that this is helpful.
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 4:37 PM
“The atheist web site you got that from is wrong”
“It is now my dreary duty to move from correcting the lies of an atheist to watching the Eagles.”
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 1:02 PM
But let me congratulate you on such fantasies, (ahem) Mr. Ima Priest (Really, I am) Guy – reminds me of a scene from the old, original Star Trek series:
“Apollo: I am Apollo!
Ensign Pavel Chekov: [sarcastically] And I am the Czar of all the Russias!”
Allow me to give you a clue – if a person offers his fantasy-strawman at point A only a fool would follow along to point B, much less to Z. A lie-based premise just is not a good starting point, especially for a “priest”.
But you’re welcome to try starting over, Your Vicarship.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 4:59 PM
Allow me to translate into English:
“You kicked my arse eight ways from Sunday, so all I got left is to call you a liar.”
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 5:01 PM
Yet you cannot deny that you began with lies, in your own words it’s on the record. If you believe that’s a good starting point, you’re certainly welcome to that belief and to be driven by it. However, using lies as starting points is not quite a novel approach. Somewhat unexpected and shameful from self-proclaimed “priests”, but hardly a new thing.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 5:11 PM
And what lie was that, please?
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 5:20 PM
Scroll up a few comments. As I said, when you start out with fantasy BS you really can’t expect anyone to take you seriously. Just not a part of hermeneutical or apologetic exposition, Your Eminenceness.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Could you be more specific?
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 5:33 PM
You really can’t be that dense. As I said, I literally emphasized your silliness and answered it just a few comments ago.
Oy. I’ll let you dance alone on this, all these circles aren’t good for my inner ear.
whatcat on October 9, 2011 at 5:47 PM
So you’ve called me a liar but refuse to mention the actual text that you consider to be a lie.
Here’s a clue: all the keystrokes you’ve devoted to avoiding my request could have been employed to answer it.
Game, set, match.
Akzed on October 9, 2011 at 5:55 PM
Thank you, Reverend, for your intelligent posts. My computer crashed Saturday and I have to borrow my daughters when I can, so I haven’t gotten a chance to come on till now.
What you posted is indisputable. And we can all see from the conversation that it was not disputed.
Thanks again and God bless you.
Elisa on October 10, 2011 at 2:09 AM
As the good Reverend has shown, those who do understand the original Hebrew will tell you that the Genesis passage is in both the plural and singular and I’m not going to repeat everything he said. But all Hebrew scholars will agree with him. Same with the “I AM” quotes. It is not the English translation this is based on. It is the original Greek that reflects the Hebrew “I AM.”
Anyone who studies this in depth can see this for themselves. It’s up to you if you care to delve into it.
I noticed that you had no comment for all the other Scripture and early Christian writings from those who actually knew the Apostles. The belief in the Trinity was early on and the Bible and early Christian writings clearly are contrary to Mormon beliefs.
As far as the St. Matthew quote, yes, that is where Jesus set St. Peter up as the leader of the early Church, the Chief Stewart. But this is not the only scripture that supports it. There is a lot. Whether or not someone wants to believe that this office had succession can be argued, but it cannot be argued that St. Peter himself was given that position in the early Church. Even most Protestant scholars today will tell you that. They just don’t believe the office had succession. And one can look at the original Greek, including the Aramaic thrown in, to see the meaning of that passage.
Since you were talking about translations, I guess you are driving at the Petros/petra thing. No, Petros did not mean small stone in 1st century Kione Greek. That was ancient Greek 5 centuries earlier. You will not find any first century writing (Biblical, Christian, Jewish or secular) Petros was used for a small stone. The singular example of petros (other than it’s use as St. Peter’s name) is Josephus who used it once when an old lady killed a big man by throwing a stone at him. Even that would have to be a powerful stone. lol
The rest of the time Josephus used “lithos.” By the 1st century the word used for stone was “lithos.” Used in the New Testament, as well.
Plus, the New Testament also used the Aramaic word “Kephas” for St. Peter. (and we know Jesus was speaking in Aramaic to St. Peter that day because the original Greek text of St. Matthew deviates into Aramaic in calling him “Simon, bar Jonah.”) In Aramaic, Kepha is rock, pure and simple.
I will post some things I’ve written and kept in my word file. It shows some more Scripture that points to Peter being given the office of Chief Stewart. If you are sincerely interested, you might find it interesting. If not, we can leave it at that.
Good night all and God bless all here.
Elisa on October 10, 2011 at 2:13 AM
Whatcat,
I am not going to post all the Scripture that supports St. Peter being the leader of the early Church, just some.
Matthew 16:16-19
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Later all are given the power to bind and loose, but Peter gets it first alone. And only Peter is given the keys to the Kingdom.
Clearly Our Lord is speaking directly and only to Peter. “Blessed are YOU” – “revealed this to YOU” – “I say to YOU, YOU are Peter/Kepha/Petros/Rock” – “I will give YOU the keys” – “Whatever YOU bind”
The Greek words used for “this rock” are “tautee petra.” Tautee really translates as “this same rock” or “this very rock.”
John 1:42
“Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas” (which is translated Peter).”
Jesus most likely said, “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church.” Kephas was not an Aramaic word. Kephas was the way the New Testatment writers and the followers addressed Simon Peter. They took the word rock and made it a name. Like the Greek Petros, they gave the Kepha a Greek sounding ending by adding an s. Kephas and even Petros were not names before this time for anyone.
All the following is my paraphrasing and condensing of a section of the book “Upon this Rock” by Stephen K. Ray. It’s a great book and I would recommend it to anyone. The footnotes are very long and as interesting as the book is. It is filled with scripture, early Christian writers, and both Catholic and Protestant scholars.
First I’ll talk about “binding and loosing.”
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
In Jewish tradition one of the meaning of this was the “legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office.” All of the middle east used these terms. This power was also given to all the Apostles in John’s Gospel.
This was “profound to First Century Jews.” Early converts would not be “confused or uncertain about what Jesus meant.” The first century Jewish historian, Josephus used these word also.
This meant that Peter and the Apostles had authority. To judge and to make laws, and also to forgive and retain. The original Greek words in this New Testament passage and the Hebrew words they stood for in part meant “to forbid and to allow” in rabbinical religious law.
While the binding and loosing power was given to all the Apostles (the first priests and Bishops), the “keys” were only given to Peter.
“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
This had huge significance. The “keys” were the “hallmark of royal authority.”
They belonged to Jesus and they were His to give and entrust to His steward. This would also be unmistakable to the Jews of Jesus’ time. The Davidic kings were “possessors of the keys of David” and had the power to “open and shut.”
Luke 1:30-33
Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the LORD GOD WILL GIVE HIM THE THRONE OF DAVID HIS FATHER AND HE WILL RULE OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOREVER, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
Revelation 3:6-7
“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”‘
“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: ” ‘The holy one, the true, who HOLDS THE KEY OF DAVID, WHO OPENS AND NO ONE SHALL CLOSE, WHO CLOSES AND NO ONE SHALL OPEN, says this: . . . “
Jesus was the Davidic king forever and He was the “holy one.” He held the “key of David” and would reign “forever.”
The Davidic Jewish kings of Israel followed the customs of other Middle Eastern kingdoms, such as Egypt. They had stewards who had “dominion over the house” like the Egyptian royalty and other Eastern rulers had Viziers and Majordomos. The Steward/Vizier/Majordomo was not simply a person, but an office that had succession. The king would entrust this office to someone he trusted and that person had royal authority over the land.
Isaiah 22:19-22
“I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I WILL PLACE THE KEY OF THE HOUSE OF DAVID ON HIS SHOULDER, WHEN HE OPENS, NO ONE WILL SHUT, WHEN HE SHUTS, NO ONE SHALL OPEN.”
Here we see the Jewish king’s steward, Eliakim. The king places the “key of the house of David on his shoulder.” The steward is entrusted with the king’s power to “open” and “shut,” like in Revelations Chapter 3 above, where Jesus, as Davidic king, has the “key” and the power to “open” and “close.” Jesus also conferred his royal power to His steward, Peter.
Here is another passage which talks about the Egyptian steward (called a Vizier), Joseph (son of Hebrew Patriarch, Jacob).
Genesis 41:38-45
“Could we find another like him,” Pharaoh asked his officials, “a man so endowed with the spirit of God?” So Pharaoh said to Joseph: “SINCE GOD HAS MADE ALL THIS KNOWN TO YOU, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith,” Pharaoh told Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph’s finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his VIZIER, and they shouted “Abrek!” before him. Thus was Joseph INSTALLED OVER THE WHOLE LAND OF EGYPT.
“I, Pharaoh, proclaim,” he told Joseph, “that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”
Pharaoh also BESTOWED THE NAME OF Zaphnath-paneah on Joseph, and he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of Heliopolis.”
Note the three things I capitalized. Joseph, as Vizier, was chosen because God had made things known to him. Just like Jesus said to Peter. His heavenly father revealed the truth to Peter and that is why Peter was chosen.
The Pharoah changed Joseph’s name upon giving him the office and the power. Just like Peter’s name was changed by Jesus (the king) when Jesus gave Peter (the steward) the “keys.”
It seems that Protestant and Catholic Bible scholars alike believe that Joseph was also given “the gift of infallible interpretation as the ‘preserver’ of Egypt.” (I don’t understand where this comes from. Maybe from “no one can be as wise and discerning as you are.”) Anyway there seems to be agreement on this point concerning Joseph. Catholics also believe that Peter had the “gift of infallible interpretation.”
And Joseph had power over the “whole land of Egypt.” In Isaiah above, the steward, Eliakim, “shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.” Peter was also given authoritative power and was to be a “father” to the Christians.
Page 266 says, “Once the work of redemption had been completed and all authority had been given to Jesus, he passed the keys of authority over to Peter to administer the kingdom as a visible steward in his ‘absence.’”
This key of royal authority is not the only key conferred upon Peter. Jesus said, “I will give you the KEYS to the kingdom of heaven.”
What are these other keys? The keys to the Netherworld/Hell/Hades.
“Abyss” is also translated as “bottomless pit” and “Netherworld” is also translated as Hades or Hell in some Bible versions (Catholic and Protestant.)
Revelation 1:17-18
When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead. He touched me with his right hand and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last,
the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the KEYS TO DEATH AND THE NETHERWORLD.”
Revelation 9:1
“Then the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. It was given the KEY FOR THE PASSAGE TO THE ABYSS.”
Revelation 20:1-2
“Then I saw an angel come down from heaven, holding in his hand the KEY TO THE ABYSS and a heavy chain. He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent, which is the Devil or Satan, and tied it up for a thousand years. . .”
These passages in Revelation describe Jesus having the keys to death and the Netherworld. Jesus gave the Church the power to save souls and overcome sin (evil and Satan) and death by preaching Christ’s message. Jesus gave Peter authority over the Church, by giving him the keys.
These keys (over sin and death and royal Davidic authority forever) were given by Jesus to Peter alone. The office of Steward was an office with succession and Jesus reigns forever. So we believe that this office given to Peter also had succession.
(end of paraphrase of Ray’s book)
Elisa on October 10, 2011 at 2:34 AM
I just asked if you shared that view, Elisa.
It’s funny because it’s the one Scripture where Catholics are biblical literalists and where non-Catholics view it differently, seeing nuances in the original Greek. Both are adamant on their particular take.
The problem is if you read on in the next few verses, you have this:
(From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops site’s bible version, the New American Bible, revised edition – as with my first citing)
Matthew 18, verses 21-23
“From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he* must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.” He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
Here the Catholic take switches back from a literal take to a nuanced, figurative one. Which is understandable or they would be on the same page as the ranting, crazy anti-everybody-type “pastors” in declaring Peter as Satan.
So what is going on is what has always gone on since probably circa 100AD after the death of Jesus original followers – people start with differing default viewpoints and read into the Scriptures pretty much whatever presuppositions they brought to the table. i.e., confirmation bias at work in concert with pareidolia. It’s as Simon and Garfunkle sang in “The Boxer” – “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
But that’s the nature of the game. Just as you, being Catholic, see the aforementioned verses as the establishment of the Papacy and The Catholic Church, Mormon folk look at this verse from John, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also and they will heed my voice”, as a proof of one of the tenants unique to their own faith.
whatcat on October 10, 2011 at 6:01 AM
May the Lord richly bless you!
Remember, in forums such as these, arguing with the village atheist could make you look like the village idiot: advice I rarely take myself!
Akzed on October 10, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Akzed,
When you bring up religion and try to defend it, you invariably AREthe village idiot.
Faith is not a virtue, and having faith does nothing but make one gullible because whenever one takes things on faith they’re accepting claims without evidence… I KNOW you think the bible is evidence, and see comments by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and others from that time period, but that’s NOT evidence.
SauerKraut537 on October 10, 2011 at 1:27 PM
God is the answer to everything…
SauerKraut537 on October 10, 2011 at 1:52 PM
I’ve had a heated discussion or two with you before, Kraut, and I see it as you and His Self-Proclaimed Vicarship as two sides of the same coin.
I don’t mean that as an insult – and at least, in my experience, you’re not given to bad cut & paste jobs from one website or another. But what I mean is, that you can, with much more ease and thematic consistency, find “proof texts” that would seem to prove God is a violent mass murderer of women and children, as someone else can dig out alleged proof texts of all manner of doctrines (e.g. “The Trinity”) that were formulated long after Christ during theological piefights, political power plays and urination competitions. Either way, it’s a Scavenger Hunt.
whatcat on October 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM
That’s the point whatcat. That we all look for evidence that confirms our biases. I USED to do as Akzed does and find all manner of creationist/religious websites that confirmed my beliefs as a Christian. That is until I got a little bit of intellectual honesty and decided to look at the information dispassionately and without trying to prove ANYthing.
What I found after much time and consideration was what many other people before me have found out, and that is that I was deceived since birth to believe in a god named Yahweh (like people of other faiths were deceived into believing in their particular god or brand of faith).
Now your mother, your father, your grandfathers and grandmothers… They meant well, none of them knew they were lying to you and I wouldn’t completely consider it lying per se, but they didn’t have enough information to know any better.
But here’s the good news. YOU DO! You have enough information to break free from the curse of faith. You live in a glorious time where practically anything you want to know is available to you instantly! You don’t have to take things on faith anymore. You can know for sure, right now, what is more probable to be true than not, you just gotta do a little research.
Our society does not have to be imprisoned by a bronze age myth written by primitive people.
We have cell phones, and high definition televisions, and computers now, and the men who gave us these things, the scientists, have doubled the life expectancy of every single one of us. They’ve proven time and time again that they know what they are talking about.
You don’t have to take their words on faith. You can see it for yourself on the desk in front of you, in your own living room, outside in your driveway and up in the sky. The proof that these men understand the natural laws of this world, at least better than anyone else, is all around us, and there is no super in natural.
Yet, still the majority of the world believe the words of primitive, bronze aged people instead of their own eyes. Could there be any greater delusion than that?
Luckily, knowledge is to faith what light is to darkness. And the fact that you are reading my words right now means that you already have access to the greatest source of knowledge the world has ever known.
SauerKraut537 on October 10, 2011 at 7:11 PM
While I can’t say I agree with all you’ve wrote I do agree on the necessity for education and developing/possessing critical thinking skills, even moreso for persons of faith. Not to destroy their faith, but rather to strengthen it.
But, at any rate, my core point is the fact that a person usually finds exactly what they go out hunting for; there are some who believe in spacemen and flying saucers. Lo and behold –
UFOs in the Bible – The History Channel (at Google Video).
whatcat on October 10, 2011 at 8:30 PM
I’ve seen that video! It’s hilarious isn’t it? I mean it’s surely possible that they could have visited and if I was an alien civilization and came across a bronze aged world I would probably suppose that it’d be OK to interact with them… It’s not like they had worldwide communications you know? And I could probably safely assume that the tales of our visits would likely grow to mythological proportions where we might be considered as gods… Well I’m sure you get the point…
All I’m arguing for is skepticism. The more skeptical you are in life the harder it is to be taken advantage of. The more faith you have in your life the easier it is to be hoodwinked.
Education DOES make one more skeptical, a lack of education makes one shrug their shoulders and say, god did it, that’s just the way things are, essentially making one lazy.
Scientia potentia est
SauerKraut537 on October 10, 2011 at 8:58 PM
Yeah, I imagine you have seen the old, original Star Trek episode where the crew runs into Apollo, lol.
But the funny thing we see here as it relates to skepticism – amongst Christian folk they are only willing to apply it to other Christian folks who are outside of their own particular tribe. They have decided, to paraphrase Socrates, “an unexamined faith is worth having”.
C’est la vie.
whatcat on October 10, 2011 at 9:49 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4