Prodigal's Isle

[Andy_III]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...5NjY2NDY4NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDQxOTQ3MQ@@._V1.SX317_SY400.jpg

You DID say he made the rules! Now you take that back, or i’m going to have to go postal on you!

That part can be scary, a lot of people don’t like to interpret it that way because it frightens them. It is, however, one of the possible meanings and IMO, if you can accept this meaning, the rest is easy. It’s nice to think that Peter has a direct line of communication to Jesus at all times, but no one wrote about anything like that, and when the authority was given to Peter, Jesus didn’t say “you must bind and loose whatever I tell you to”. Can you imagine the incredible responsibility involved? Would you like to have that responsibility thrust upon you?

That said, we have already seen that:

1. Peter made a statement and was corrected when in error (although the error wasn’t about the Church)
2. Peter was given guidance to make a decision directly
3. Peter made decisions seemingly on his own and was not corrected

Maybe that makes things a bit less scary.

 

[LionHeart777]

So you would think it best for me to stop asking whether the USS Catholic is seaworthy, or whether the USS Protestant will sink, and just assume that both are safe for the trip? Well, i have to choose one or the other, as i cannot make the trip on both! So how should i decide which to choose? Shall i flip a coin, or shall i draw straws as Peter did?

No, no, quite the contrary. Just dialogue, prayer, and study–. Coin flippage or one foot on each boat is not the proper way for you to proceed IMO. I was just offering some advice that day and perhaps I should’ve kept quiet I know how frustrating a search for the truth can be. Just keep on going ultimately getting off the island is going to take a leap of faith which was what I was saying maybe–but that is probably just me repeating something that is common sense. Carry on, carry on…

Nick

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… The pope operates as the executive branch in a more limited fashion. He has no temporal power to force anyone to do anything. No army. He levies no taxes. Everything is paid for through donation. The only power he has is to exert moral authority and to choose whether to give or deny people the sacraments. Thus, he decides who is a bishop and who may recieve the sacraments.

Others can add or subtract, but I think this is a fair representation of the Catholic position.

Well, one might argue (perhaps convincingly so) that the Pope’s power to deny the sacraments is greater than a President’s power to bring death to enemies of the state. The President’s power effects only the body and, therefore has only temporary effect. The Popes power effects the immortal soul and, therefore has eternal consequences.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I do admire Peter If nothing else Peter is a great example of of all Christians growing in the knowledge and faith of Christ. Some Catholics here have a conservative view of Peters authority understanding that that Peter does not operate in a vacuum but is lead by Christ. …

And what’s your opinion of the conservative view?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Others indicate a liberal open ended type of power that encompasses every aspect of God IE forgiving sins, establishing doctrine and judging men. If you will this picture takes the shape of an hour glass. Jesus as He was with the Apostles is at the point that sand flows from heaven above to the Earth below the door if you will. Catholic propose that as Jesus accented to the Father that this position, the apex point between the upper and lower chamber is occupied by Peter and his elected successors. This visual indicates that the door is now occupied by Peters successors. You can see that the placement of catholics single vicar of Christ that nothing can pass from heaven to earth or visa versa without passing threw the pope. It smacks of the verse Jesus said about the Priest of the old temple. The Levitical priest hood held this position because it was the way the LORD worked threw the OT it is the old covenant. They did not accept or allow Jesus to officially receive this apex position that was rightfully His. …

Are you saying that the liberal view applies to the hourglass analogy, but the conservative view does not? Or do you think the analogy applies equally to both views?

 

[Andy_III]

I do think we need to note the steps that are continually repeated for accepting the Catholic faith.

1. The first step is to establish Peter as having authority beyond any other biblical figure. The capability to define doctrine. Not just the reflection of the NT teachings but doctrine no even mentioned in scripture like Marionoligy.
2. Next is to establish that this gift could be and was passed to his appointed successors.

3)The next step becomes easier if the first are accepted, that is the the separation of the laity from the priest. By referring to the bridges just crossed the third is a piece of cake. Bridges and bridge building as some have mentioned earlier is where the word papal and pope is derived from. Papal root word meaning bridge builder.

Congratulation you have just reestablish the Old Covenant.
We have the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter. The history of the church that is held up as doctrine by these priest. And a host of offerings that can be made, including the most important of all, the receiving of Jesus in the form of the Eucharist to the people. Effectively taking Jesus down from the cross and serving Him, the atonement for sin to the people. The complete function of the Old Covenant complete with mediators in the form of men. These priest protect this right of passage and atest that no one else has the perfect bread from heaven that can only be found inside the new temple of god the catholic church.

Taken a step further only the Levite’s AKA catholic priest the successors to Peter, know the proper translation of the word of God because only they possess the HS that is of Apostolic origin [see step 1 and 2] Now it is much more evident why catholics faith lies in the church and not the Holy Spirit. Why they can possibly see scripture in any other light than that presented by the fathers. Did you say you would like the HS just step over here and we’ll baptize you with the HS, no problem, we have all authority on earth as well as heaven.

Excepting the sarcastic tone, Michael makes a good point. The OT does shed a lot of light on the NT. If the OT was wiped away, why include it in the Bible? The OT provides the “type” (read template or pattern) for many things in the NT. Jesus was well aware of this, and so were the Apostles. There was even a “type” for the keys to the Kindom of Heaven, it was the key of the house of David (“When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open” IS22:22).

Couldn’t help one question to the peanut gallery:
Michael, are you saying Jesus became flesh to fix God’s mistakes from the OT?

Okay, I’ll resume resisting those impulses now.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… This is, was the shadow of the things to come. Jesus holds that apex point forever and to make perfect this new covenant the Holy Spirit now has access from the Father threw Jesus to all men on earth. Jesus is the only mediator between Heaven and Earth. If you place any thing else in this apex position you have denied Jesus His rightful position. …

At first thought, what you say rings true, for Paul writes to Timothy:For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

(1 Timothy 2:5-6)

But when i further consider a mediator, i wonder if a Pope really is considered one by the Catholic Church. For i think of a mediator as one who helps to settle a dispute between two sides who are at odds with one another. The mediator’s purpose is to bring the matter to a peaceful resolution where both sides benefit from the result, and a labor dispute is a typical example demonstrating the purpose of a mediator. A labor union might call for its members to go on strike when they perceive the management for the business is acting unjustly. A mediator, who represents the interests of both management and labor, will attempt to find a way to settle the dispute.

Paul’s words seem to indicate that this kind of mediation is what he had in mind when he says Christ is the only mediator between God and man. For he writes that “Christ Jesus … gave himself as a ransom for all men”. The kind of mediation of which Paul appears to be speaking is not daily communicating God’s will, but settling the enmity between God and man once for all by His passion on the cross. Now, once a dispute is settled, the two that were adversaries are no longer so, so there is no need for a mediator. Since management and labor are no longer waring against one another, they can communicate directly with one another.

If this assumption is correct, then one could not correctly call the Pope a mediator. For Christ already mediated a resolution to the conflict. Thus, labor, headed by the labor union president (in other words the Pope) is no longer in need of mediation with management, headed by the CEO (in other words, God the Father). Rather than a mediator, the Pope (if i’m understanding the Catholic view correctly) is thought to be a representative and communicator. He represents the people of the church, by bring their requests to God. He also communicates God’s will to the people. So it seems there is no mediation, only representation and communication. But am i mistaken in saying the Catholic Church does not believe the Pope to be a mediator between God and man?

Glasgow Life Museums

Glasgow Life Museums: home of the city's civic collection of art and objects from around the world and through the centuries.

www.glasgowlife.org.uk

 

[paul_c]

I do admire Peter If nothing else Peter is a great example of of all Christians growing in the knowledge and faith of Christ. Some Catholics here have a conservative view of Peters authority understanding that that Peter does not operate in a vacuum but is lead by Christ. Others indicate a liberal open ended type of power that encompasses every aspect of God IE forgiving sins, establishing doctrine and judging men. If you will this picture takes the shape of an hour glass. Jesus as He was with the Apostles is at the point that sand flows from heaven above to the Earth below the door if you will. Catholic propose that as Jesus accented to the Father that this position, the apex point between the upper and lower chamber is occupied by Peter and his elected successors. This visual indicates that the door is now occupied by Peters successors. You can see that the placement of catholics single vicar of Christ that nothing can pass from heaven to earth or visa versa without passing threw the pope. It smacks of the verse Jesus said about the Priest of the old temple. The Levitical priest hood held this position because it was the way the LORD worked threw the OT it is the old covenant. They did not accept or allow Jesus to officially receive this apex position that was rightfully His.

This is, was the shadow of the things to come. Jesus holds that apex point forever and to make perfect this new covenant the Holy Spirit now has access from the Father threw Jesus to all men on earth. Jesus is the only mediator between Heaven and Earth. If you place any thing else in this apex position you have denied Jesus His rightful position. Now as the sands “small stones” flowed threw, the 12 Apostles were the first pass threw the apex “Jesus” laying the foundation in the bottom of the hour glass. And upon them the sands “other living stones” that received the HS were being built upon them. The pile of sand is being built up to this very day in the same fashion. The stone the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone. Laying the foundation and building the church, a new priest hood in which He is the high Priest governing every living stone one upon another. What kind of shape does this visual make? The sands falling threw takes the shape of a pyramid. The chief corner stone is the apex of a pyramid not a corner stone of a building. Jesus is the chief corner stone the apex of the hour glass. I do have more to say but it useless to go further until this concept is accepted.
http://www.grg.org/images/HourGlass.../albums/af77/michaelsmth626/Pyramidedit-2.jpg

Michael,
I think the issue here is that you fail to recognize that the Church and its leadership is the instrument by which Jesus brings men to himself and that he himself occupies the top as God, not the Apex. You see, the Jesus used the Church to create that Bible that you recognize as his word. And he uses his annointed priests, spiritual descendents of the apostles , to bring his grace to the people through the administration of the Sacraments. With very few exceptions, God has used People to communicate his will to the people. He used Abraham, Moses, David and the prophets to communicate his will to the people of the old testament . And of course, God became man to communicate the truths about salvation. And when Jesus ascended into heaven, he left men, the Apostles and ultimately their successors to pass on the truth. God could have passed on information any way he pleased. But he chose to work through men, forming a Church and putting Peter in charge ( See Matthew 16)

 

[Andy_III]

But now i’m confused! Other Catholics have gone to great lengths to convince me that when Jesus said this
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)

our Lord was giving Peter, and Peter ***alone ***such authority. Thus, he had authority over the others, for only he could bind and loose. Now are you saying that i’ve been led to believe a lie? Please help me resolve this apparent contradiction.

Peter alone was given the keys, but all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose. Peter alone had the primacy, to resolve and disputes at the highest levels. And that authority must be passed on once Peter died, because a group of men with equal authority without a head is sure to fracture and divide. And that is exactly what happened to those who separated from Peter’s office, the beliefs either died out or fractured. Take any belief that is not held by the Catholic Church and test its age, you’ll find that it is much less than 2000 years. Sometimes the same heresies come and go, but only the Catholic Church has weathered all the storms.

 

[Pax]

So are you saying that when Peter sinned, after receiving the authority from Christ to bind and loose, that his sins were never sins of ignorance? For if his knowledge of right and wrong was perfect, then every sin that he committed was one of willful rebellion, and not ignorance, it think.

I can see then we have two important questions to consider:

1. 
   *]**Peter’s authority. **Was the power to bind an loose given to him alone, or to all Apostles?
   *]Peter’s perfection. Was he perfect in knowledge but not in obedience so that whenever he sinned, he was never deceived into thinking he was not sinning?

1. 
   Soc in Christ,
   
   In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose exclusively.
   
   In Matthew 19:18 Jesus gives the apostles as a group the power to bind and loose.
   
   The giving of the keys to Peter is significant as is the individual giving of the power to bind and loose. Peter is the chief steward, prime minister, or chief shepherd. The power given to the apostles in general is also the power to bind and loose, but not as the chief shepherd or against the chief shepherd.
   
   Does this help?

 

[michaelsmth626]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...5NjY2NDY4NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDQxOTQ3MQ@@._V1.SX317_SY400.jpg

You DID say he made the rules! Now you take that back, or i’m going to have to go postal on you!

That part can be scary, a lot of people don’t like to interpret it that way because it frightens them. It is, however, one of the possible meanings and IMO, if you can accept this meaning, the rest is easy. It’s nice to think that Peter has a direct line of communication to Jesus at all times, but no one wrote about anything like that, and when the authority was given to Peter, Jesus didn’t say “you must bind and loose whatever I tell you to”. Can you imagine the incredible responsibility involved? Would you like to have that responsibility thrust upon you?

That said, we have already seen that:

1. Peter made a statement and was corrected when in error (although the error wasn’t about the Church)
2. Peter was given guidance to make a decision directly
3. Peter made decisions seemingly on his own and was not corrected

Maybe that makes things a bit less scary.

I think this ends the wondering about the liberty of anyone operating outside of Jesus.

John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[e] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.
29 “And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me. 31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here.

Ends chapter 14
Next chapter 15

15:1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away;[a] and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples.

Binding and losing is not an open ended promise.

Take note of the phrase “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you”. Jesus did not say you are clean because you were baptized.

We see the full action of this in Acts 10 the Gentiles were loosed from bondage to sin by hearing and believing the word. Washed made clean and received the Spirit. Now note that the HS had not yet come, the disciples were cleaned / prepared [John 14:25 above]. Just like all the other Jews that received Johns baptism. Cleaned and prepared by hearing the word, the true word. Not some argument about power.

I do think we need to note the steps that are continually repeated for accepting the Catholic faith.

1. The first step is to establish Peter as having authority beyond any other biblical figure. The capability to define doctrine. Not just the reflection of the NT teachings but doctrine no even mentioned in scripture like Marionoligy.
2. Next is to establish that this gift could be and was passed to his appointed successors.

3)The next step becomes easier if the first are accepted, that is the the separation of the laity from the priest. By referring to the bridges just crossed the third is a piece of cake. Bridges and bridge building as some have mentioned earlier is where the word papal and pope is derived from. Papal root word meaning bridge builder.

Congratulation you have just reestablish the Old Covenant.

 

[Pax]

If you would, could you just summarize it in your own words, I’ll be quite honest I have read many statements from the CC, they put me to sleep or are worded in such a way that I would have to hire a layer to translate them for me. I will trust your capability to convey the meaning.

michaelsmth in Christ,

You should read the link. You dismiss it without perusing it. Nevertheless, I will give you something of my own. In it I put the Levitical priesthood and NT priesthood into their proper relationship but the main point is the foreshadowing in the Old and the fulfillment in the New.

There is some overlap with the link I gave, but the presentations differ and you might very well benefit from both.

Here is my take on things:

The OT clearly indicates that the Jewish people were a priestly people. Likewise, we know that the ministerial priesthood of the Levites existed within Judaism right along side the general priesthood of the people. Likewise, the OT ministerial priesthood had a High Priest. Likewise, the NT has a High Priest in Jesus.

The OT makes it clear that the Levitical priesthood had duties, responsibilities, authority, and power reserved to the ministerial priesthood. Likewise, the NT church has a ministerial priesthood with powers reserved to it that are not shared by the non-ministerial priesthood of Christian believers.

The OT predicts the coming of Jesus. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently refer to Jesus as the “Branch” of David and they are prophetic in describing Him. Jeremiah makes reference to an unending ministerial priesthood patterned after the Levitical priesthood as it relates to Jesus.

Jeremiah 33:14-18 says:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’ “For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever.”

We also see an important prophecy concerning the mass and Eucharist in Malachi 1:11-12 which says:

“For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.”

It is important to note that there is only one pure offering that has ever been given to God. That offering was Jesus Christ upon the cross. Nevertheless, this prophecy says that in every place from the rising to the setting of the sun this perfect offering will be made. It then refers to the Lord’s table and the food that is upon it. Only the Catholic mass and the Eucharist fit this prophecy. Likewise, such offerings and sacrifices are by definition offered by priests. Moreover, these priests are always of the ministerial priesthood.

There is another pattern in the NT tied to the OT Levitical priesthood. Korah’s rebellion involved the usurpation of the ministerial priesthood.

In Jude 1:10-11 it says:
But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.

For someone to perish in Korah’s rebellion in the NT church means that they would have to be attempting to usurp or otherwise abuse the ministerial priesthood. The ministerial priesthood is also attested to through the laying on of hands.

God bless.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Now as the sands “small stones” flowed threw, the 12 Apostles were the first pass threw the apex “Jesus” laying the foundation in the bottom of the hour glass. And upon them the sands “other living stones” that received the HS were being built upon them. The pile of sand is being built up to this very day in the same fashion. The stone the builders rejected has become the chief corner stone. Laying the foundation and building the church, a new priest hood in which He is the high Priest governing every living stone one upon another. What kind of shape does this visual make? The sands falling threw takes the shape of a pyramid. The chief corner stone is the apex of a pyramid not a corner stone of a building. Jesus is the chief corner stone the apex of the hour glass. I do have more to say but it useless to go further until this concept is accepted.
http://www.grg.org/images/HourGlass.../albums/af77/michaelsmth626/Pyramidedit-2.jpg

I’m looking forward to hearing what you have to say! And i appreciate your adding an opposite view to the others who are trying to convince me. I understand, from past experience, what it is like to feel that one is all alone in a discussion thread. Keep up the good work!

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

(Galatians 6:9)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Peter alone was given the keys, but all the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose. …

Who was Jesus speaking to in Matthew 16:19, Andy? All of the Apostles, or Peter alone?

 

[Andy_III]

Here’s another way to think about this:

a) The Church was founded by Jesus using Peter as the foundation
b) Jesus used the word rock (to at least describe the foundation)
c) Jesus told the parable about building on rock and sand
d) You shall know them by the fruit they bear
e) No good tree bears bad fruit

Given this, we can evaluate all the “one churches” out there by this simple test provided fairly recently (since roughly 1930). Artificial contraception (a.k.a. birth control) is an objective evil since it murders a life that has not committed any actual sin (this is backed by the Bible). Around 1930, the Anglican church (started by a king that wanted a divorce that the Church wouldn’t let him have) decreed that articificial contraception was acceptable. Basically, every other denomination followed suit sooner or later, except one – you guessed it – the Catholic Church. This was a “storm” that swept over the world and is continuing to wreak havoc in the general population. The house built on rock has whethered the storm, even if some who claimed to be on the rock were swept away, too.

I’m sure there are other examples that could be used in place of the one I gave. You will not find a teaching from the Church that advocates any evil when there is an alternative. You will, unfortunately, find people who claim to be in the Church who participate or advocate evil.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc in Christ,

In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose exclusively.

In Matthew 19:18 Jesus gives the apostles as a group the power to bind and loose.

The giving of the keys to Peter is significant as is the individual giving of the power to bind and loose. Peter is the chief steward, prime minister, or chief shepherd. The power given to the apostles in general is also the power to bind and loose, but not as the chief shepherd or against the chief shepherd.

Does this help?

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.

(Matthew 18:15-19)

Sure; clear as mud!



The only way that i can see that all of the Apostles have the power to bind and loose and Peter alone have the power to bind and loose is if Jesus was speaking of apples and oranges. That is the binding and loosing He gave to Peter alone cannot be the same as the binding and loosing given to those other than Peter.

Do you see what i mean? And if so, how does the binding and loosing of Matthew 18 differ from that of Matthew 16?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[JRKH]

James:

Are you saying that my earlier suspicion is correct? That is, do you think the Bible is sometimes ambiguous, and do you therefore believe it requires some authority to determine the correct interpretation of these ambiguous texts should be?

Sorry to have been away so long - The needs of home and my DW take precidence as you will readily grant.

If by ambiguous you mean that, while the author certainly had but one meaning in mind (God’s True meaning) when he wrote a passage, others can draw iffering meanings from that passage, then yes I think we can safely say that parts of the Bible are ambiguous.
And since Christ Himself instructed the Faithful to “Tell it To The Church” it seems clear enough that there should be, “some authority to determine the correct interpretation of these ambiguous texts should be.”

Peace
James

 

[michaelsmth626]

michaelsmth in Christ,

The OT predicts the coming of Jesus. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently refer to Jesus as the “Branch” of David and they are prophetic in describing Him. Jeremiah makes reference to an unending ministerial priesthood patterned after the Levitical priesthood as it relates to Jesus.

Jeremiah 33:14-18 says:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’ “For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever.”

The Messiahs coming This is Jesus sitting on the throne of David never be handed over to another.

33:18 The Messiah’s coming will also mean that the covenant with Levi (Mal 2:1-9) will be kept. The Messiah will be both king (2 Sam 7:16) and priest (Ps 110:4).
33:19-21 See 31:35-37. Like the new covenant, God’s covenant with David and Levi will endure forever. This does not contradict the NT teaching about a new covenant (31:31), for Christ fulfills the promise that one of David’s descendants will always reign over the house of Israel.
33:22 Like Abraham’s descendants, the offspring of David will be innumerable (Gen 15:1-6), for believers in the Messiah will be innumerable. They will share the Messiah’s inheritance (Rom 8:17). They will also serve as God’s priests (Ex 19:5-6; Isa 66:21; 1 Pet 2:5, 9). my servant. Like Moses (Num 12:7), David was God’s servant in that he was God’s undershepherd for Israel, God’s means of writing revelation, and God’s close friend. The Messiah was to be the greatest servant (see Isa 42:1-9).
33:24 these people. The nations who observe what has happened to Israel and Judah. These observers think God has despised and rejected the two clans that he chose (i.e., Israel and Judah). This was being said just before Israel went into captivity in Babylon. The promise that Davids throne and the prophesy would be fulfilled in spite of Israels fall because of disobedience.

Notice this does not contradict the NT teaching about a new covenant (31:31)
Now will you please point out the CC place in this description? Jeremiah 31:31 is a description of what takes place when Davids throne is occupied forever by Jesus.

Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Here’s another way to think about this:

a) The Church was founded by Jesus using Peter as the foundation
b) Jesus used the word rock (to at least describe the foundation)
c) Jesus told the parable about building on rock and sand
d) You shall know them by the fruit they bear
e) No good tree bears bad fruit

Given this, we can evaluate all the “one churches” out there by this simple test provided fairly recently (since roughly 1930). Artificial contraception (a.k.a. birth control) is an objective evil since it murders a life that has not committed any actual sin (this is backed by the Bible). Around 1930, the Anglican church (started by a king that wanted a divorce that the Church wouldn’t let him have) decreed that articificial contraception was acceptable. Basically, every other denomination followed suit sooner or later, except one – you guessed it – the Catholic Church. This was a “storm” that swept over the world and is continuing to wreak havoc in the general population. The house built on rock has whethered the storm, even if some who claimed to be on the rock were swept away, too.

I’m sure there are other examples that could be used in place of the one I gave. You will not find a teaching from the Church that advocates any evil when there is an alternative. You will, unfortunately, find people who claim to be in the Church who participate or advocate evil.

Yes, but who was Jesus speaking to in Matthew 16:19, Andy? All of the Apostles, or Peter alone?


“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Sorry to have been away so long - The needs of home and my DW take precidence as you will readily grant.

If by ambiguous you mean that, while the author certainly had but one meaning in mind (God’s True meaning) when he wrote a passage, others can draw differing meanings from that passage, then yes I think we can safely say that parts of the Bible are ambiguous.
…

Agreed! (And no need to apologize.)