tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4728522040671874126..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Busting the Mormon Monopoly on TruthJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-84823016556263770312008-02-22T07:27:00.000-06:002008-02-22T07:27:00.000-06:00Since the king of Jerusalem was also a priest, Dav...Since the king of Jerusalem was also a priest, David became a priest, not because he was a Levite, but because he continued the tradition established by Melchizedek. This is what Psalm 110:4 is trying to communicate. The words of verse 4 are addressed to the king: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’”<BR/><BR/>Melchizedek now becomes a type of the Davidic king. The descendants of David will be king and they will be priests; this is clearly expressed in 2 Samuel 8:18: “and David's sons were priests.”<BR/><BR/>The priesthood of Melchizedek is used by the author of the book of Hebrews to prove the claim that Jesus Christ was a high priest. In Israel, the high priest had to be a Levite and a descendant of Aaron. Since Jesus was from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David, it was impossible for the writer of Hebrews to say that Jesus was a high priest.<BR/><BR/>But, this is precisely what the author of Hebrews is emphasizing in his writing. As a high priest, Jesus presented a sacrifice for sins. Jesus Christ was the “great high priest who has passed through the heavens” (Hebrews 4:14). Jesus Christ was the high priest who opened the way for people to approach the throne of grace (the Mercy Seat) with confidence so that they “may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16).<BR/><BR/>The writer of the book of Hebrews then is saying that Jesus became a high priest, not because he was a descendant of Aaron. Jesus because a high priest after the order of Melchizedek because he was a descendant of David and a legitimate successor of the legacy left by David when he became king of Jerusalem. Christ was a human sacrifice to replace the office of Levitical order of the Aaronic priesthood.<BR/><BR/>By saying that Jesus became a priest after the order of Melchizedek, the author of Hebrews is emphasizing that Jesus “become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent” (Hebrews 7:16-17), but because of the promise made to David that he and his descendants would become priests forever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Claude Mariottini<BR/>Professor of Old Testament<BR/>Northern Baptist Seminary <BR/>*Why did Christ need to obtain the priesthood? <BR/>Hebrew 2<BR/>9and him who was made some little less than messengers we see -- Jesus <BR/>John 3:13<BR/>No one has ever ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.<BR/>The word "hell" often being used in Scripture to denote a grave. I grant that what they put forward concerning the meaning of the word is true: "hell" is frequently to be understood as "grave." But two reasons militate against their opinion, and readily persuade me to disagree with them. How careless it would have been, when something not at all difficult in itself has been stated with clear and easy words, to indicate it again in words that obscure rather than clarify it! Whenever two expressions for the same thing are used in the same context, the latter ought to be an explanation of the former. But what sort of explanation will it be if one says that "Christ was buried" means that "he descended into hell"? <BR/><BR/>"He will redeem the captives from the waterless pit" [Zechariah 9:11 p.]. It is childish to enclose the souls of the dead in a prison. What need, then, for Christ’s soul to go down there to release them? "Christ came and preached to the spirits were in a ‘watchtower — commonly rendered ‘prison’" [1 Peter 3:19, cf. Vg.]<BR/><BR/>The Christ in the Garden Gethsemane , therefore, "praying with tears and loud cries, …is heard for his …fear" [Hebrews 5:7 p.];he does not pray to be spared death, but he prays not to be swallowed up by it as a sinner because he there bore our nature, and surely no more terrible abyss can be conceived than to feel yourself forsaken and estranged from God; and when you call upon him, not to be heard. <BR/><BR/>Does not that prayer, coming from unbelievable bitterness of heart and repeated three times — "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" [Matthew 26:39] <BR/><BR/>Christ obtain the priesthood to return to His Father in Heaven and to pass it on to us and show us the way so we to would have the keys of Peter so we could return to Our Father in Heaven. First He descended from the highest to the lowest giving up His power and (priesthoods) authorities the obtain them and ascended to the highest.<BR/><BR/>*When did Christ need to obtain this priesthood?<BR/><BR/>4having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.<BR/>5For to which of the messengers said He ever, `My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten thee?' and again, `I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?' <BR/><BR/>When did Christ obtain this priesthood? When was the only two times when The Christ was introduced by the Heavenly Father as His Son. At His baptism He obtained the Aaronic priesthood from John the Baptist. A the Mount of Transfiguration from Moses, Elijah, and His Most Holy Father.<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 5<BR/>4and no one to himself doth take the honour, but he who is called by God, as also Aaron:<BR/>5so also the Christ did not glorify himself to become chief priest, but He who spake unto him: `My Son thou art, I to-day have begotten thee;' <BR/><BR/>6as also in another [place] He saith, `Thou [art] a priest -- to the age, according to the order of Melchisedek;'<BR/>When did He obtain the Melchisedek priesthood? When He became of age and proved Him self worthy. Christ was made perfect by learning things which He suffered and remained obedient. And "…having been made perfect, he did become to all those (that follow him) obeying Him (in) a cause of salvation (become a priest according to the order of Melchisedek.) or age-during.<BR/><BR/>8through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience,<BR/>9and having been made perfect, he did become to all those obeying him a cause of salvation age-during,<BR/>10having been addressed by God a chief priest, according to the order of Melchisedek, <BR/>*Who should obtain this priesthood?<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 2<BR/><BR/>3how shall we escape,<BR/>10For it was becoming to Him, because of whom [are] the all things, and through whom [are] the all things, many sons to glory bringing, the author of their salvation through sufferings to make perfect, <BR/><BR/>11for both he who is sanctifying and those sanctified [are] all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, <BR/><BR/>12saying, `I will declare Thy name to my brethren, in the midst of an assembly I will sing praise to Thee;' and again, `I will be trusting on Him;' <BR/><BR/>13and again, `Behold I and the children that God did give to me.'<BR/>Hebrews 4<BR/>14Having, then, a great chief priest passed through the heavens -- Jesus the Son of God -- may we hold fast the profession, <BR/><BR/>Hebrews 5<BR/>1For every chief priest -- out of men taken -- in behalf of men is set in things [pertaining] to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins,<BR/><BR/>With the new priest's to offer "sacrifices for sins" as they exercise the priesthood that God has given them through His Son Jesus Christ to administer the Flesh and Blood for the sin of all man kind. <BR/><BR/>In the new temples under the new covenant these sacrifices, gifts would be a form of wave offering and would not be of any effect to forgive sin, but to help others.again as with the priests of the old temple they are a show of obedience and devotion.<BR/><BR/>David that he and his descendants would become priests forever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4) <BR/>At the very least the sons of David. Where are they. Well direct descendents we do not know for sure. But what of the rest of us. "Behold I and the children that God did give to me." We are adopted in to the House of Israel or of Judah, or David or any family God see fit for us.<BR/><BR/>"Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is." To be like Him we must obtain the same priesthood that our Father in Heaven gave to His Son. We are and become sons of the Father when we follow His Son, Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>*Why should we obtain this priesthood? <BR/>When Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (which means rock) and said, “upon this rock I will build My church,” (Matt 16:18) it was a reference to the metaphor of Abraham being a rock upon which Israel was built. “Look to the rock from which you were hewn…Look to Abraham your father…” (Isaiah 51:1-2)<BR/><BR/>When Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven,” it was a reference to Isaiah 22. Proper understanding of Matthew 16:18-19 requires knowledge of Isaiah 22. The keeper of the keys is an office of authority. Isaiah 22 says this about the person who holds this office:<BR/><BR/>We to are referred to as stones and a royal priesthood. For us to perform marriages, baptisms and other ordinances and make them binding on earth and in heaven in necessitates that we obtain the same priesthood as Peter.<BR/><BR/>1Peter 2 <BR/>5.and ye yourselves, as living stones, are built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6.Wherefore, also, it is contained in the Writing: `Lo, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, choice, precious, and he who is believing on him may not be put to shame;' 7.to you, then, who are believing [is] the preciousness; and to the unbelieving, a stone that the builders disapproved of, this one did become for the head of a corner, 8.and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence -- who are stumbling at the word, being unbelieving, -- to which also they were set; 9and ye [are] a choice race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people acquired, that the excellences ye may shew forth of Him who out of darkness did call you to His wondrous light;<BR/><BR/>So the Bible clearly states that Christ's followers should have a priesthood present in His church. (1 Peter 2:5, 9), <BR/><BR/>"For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee" (Titus 1:5).<BR/><BR/>"Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" (James 5:14-15).<BR/><BR/>Romans 15:15-16 <BR/>15But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, <BR/><BR/>16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>*Why did The Christ do this? <BR/>10For it was becoming to Him, because of whom [are] the all things, and through whom [are] the all things, many sons to glory bringing, the author of their salvation through sufferings to make perfect, <BR/><BR/>11for both he who is sanctifying and those sanctified [are] all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, <BR/><BR/>12saying, `I will declare Thy name to my brethren, in the midst of an assembly I will sing praise to Thee;' and again, `I will be trusting on Him;' <BR/><BR/>13and again, `Behold I and the children that God did give to me.'<BR/>14Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil -- <BR/><BR/>"unto the perfection we may advance" <BR/>Ephesians 4 <BR/>12 "unto the perfecting of the saints" <BR/>*Why were these things being taught in the Book of Hebrews?<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 5<BR/>11concerning whom we have much discourse and of hard explanation to say, since ye have become dull of hearing,<BR/>12for even owing to be teachers, because of the time, again ye have need that one teach you what [are] the elements of the beginning of the oracles of God, and ye have become having need of milk, and not of strong food, <BR/><BR/>13for every one who is partaking of milk [is] unskilled in the word of righteousness -- for he is an infant,<BR/>14and (of perfect men is the strong food), who because of the use are having the senses exercised, unto the discernment both of good and of evil.<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 6<BR/>1Wherefore, having left the word of the beginning of the Christ, (unto the perfection we may advance), not again a foundation laying of reformation from dead works, and of faith on God, <BR/><BR/>2of the teaching of baptisms, of laying on also of hands, of rising again also of the dead, and of judgment age-during, <BR/><BR/>3and this we will do, if God may permit,<BR/>4for [it is] impossible for those once enlightened, having tasted also of the heavenly gift, and partakers having became of the Holy Spirit, <BR/><BR/>5and did taste the good saying of God, the powers also of the coming age,<BR/>6and having fallen away, again to renew [them] to reformation, having crucified again to themselves the Son of God, and exposed to public shame.<BR/><BR/>*Why should we obtain this priesthood? <BR/>This brings us to the principle sacrifice of the New Testament priesthood, which is the Eucharist or Lord's Supper. To see the sacrificial dimension to the Lord's Supper, note first that it is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament Passover feast, in which the sacrificed paschal lamb was consumed (1 Cor. 5:7-8). The New Testament Eucharist, like the Old Testament Passover, is thus a sacrificial meal.<BR/><BR/>Further confirmation is found in the words Jesus used to instruct his ministers to perform it. His statement, "Do this in remembrance of me," may also be translated, "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice"<BR/><BR/>Jesus' word anamnesis, usually translated "remembrance," also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read, <BR/><BR/>"But those sacrifices are an annual reminder [anamnesis] of sins." If you read Romans 12:1, you find out that we present ourselves to God as wave offerings, for Paul tells us to offer our bodies to him as a living sacrifice.We thus see the function of the temple -- offering of sacrifice -- being brought together with the function of the synagogue -- teaching the people -- into the New Testament church. Those who preside over the church thus incorporate both the functions of the Old Testament priest and the Old Testament elder<BR/><BR/>Jesus' word anamnesis, usually translated "remembrance," also has sacrificial overtones. For example, in the NIV of Hebrews 10:3 we read,<BR/><BR/>*What does this priesthood to do with the temple?<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 6<BR/><BR/>and entering into that within the veil,<BR/>20whither a forerunner for us did enter -- Jesus, after the order of Melchisedek chief priest having become -- to the age. <BR/><BR/>Here we see that Christ was the first to enter within the veil as a forerunner for us to enter after He obtained the Melchisedek priesthood as then we also need to obtain the same priesthood to be able to follow.<BR/><BR/>If the priesthood changed from the Levitical priesthood to the Melchizedek priesthood in the First Century, "of necessity there is also a change of the Law" (v.12). <BR/><BR/>Thus, the Law is not thrown out, it is just changed and refined (Matthew 5:18). <BR/>Without the priesthood one can not function in the temple. Now Christ is our more superior High Priest, and as believers in the finished work of Jesus we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies by Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says that the faithful enter into the sanctuary by the “blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the veil, that is, through his flesh.”<BR/><BR/>*How shall we have a pattern to follow?<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 8<BR/>1And the sum concerning the things spoken of [is]: we have such a chief priest, who did sit down at the right hand of the throne of the greatness in the heavens, <BR/><BR/>2of the holy places a servant, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord did set up, and not man,<BR/>3for every chief priest to offer both gifts and sacrifices is appointed, whence [it is] necessary for this one to have also something that he may offer; <BR/><BR/>4for if, indeed, he were upon earth, he would not be a priest -- (there being the priests who are offering according to the law, the gifts, <BR/><BR/>5who unto an example and shadow do serve of the heavenly things, as Moses hath been divinely warned, being about to construct the tabernacle, for `See (saith He) thou mayest make all things according to the pattern that was shewn to thee in the mount;') -- <BR/><BR/>6and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned, <BR/><BR/>7for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second.<BR/>8For finding fault, He saith to them, `Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant, <BR/><BR/>He did make a new covenant with Judah and who is the new house of Judah? All that follow Him and His new commandments and priesthoods under this new covenant must obtain this priesthood to be made perfect like our Father In Heaven which is perfect.<BR/><BR/>*Why would such ordinances or descriptions need to be emphasized if the priesthood and the temple is no longer needed. Remember a temple could be any building that is set apart for such activities. It did not require the temple in Jerusalem we know this from archeology that other small temples existed.<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 10<BR/>19Having, therefore, brethren, boldness for the entrance into the holy places, in the blood of Jesus,<BR/>20which way he did initiate us into the new and living covenant, through the vail, that is, his flesh as a high priest over the House of the Lord,<BR/>22may we draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having the hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having the body bathed with pure water; <BR/><BR/>Again the author invites the initiates to enter in to holy places (temple) because Christ will initiate us in the new and living covenant through the veil as high priest in the House of the Lord, entering with a pure heart, full of faith, being sprinkled with the assurance of being washed clean of the evil of this generation and our bodies washed pure with pure water.<BR/><BR/>*Christ's calling to you? <BR/>Many think talk of a priesthood is authoratic or arrogant and has been done away with but if we approach the scriptures with an open mind we can see that a priesthood was to be a part of Christ's church and that the Book of Hebrews is laying the ground work for a introduction for His members. Although at times members may not live up to all the ideal standards most LDS that I have known are truly humbled as it relates to the priesthood. At this relates to NM, T4x4 and all the world we humbly invite all to repent, be baptized, obtain this priesthood as did our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and chief priest of our profession, Christ Jesus,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-77385893837047442232008-02-19T11:51:00.000-06:002008-02-19T11:51:00.000-06:00Tx4: Unfortunately the order of the 'levitical pri...Tx4: Unfortunately the order of the 'levitical priesthood' was also 'disannulled' at the same time and for the same reasons.<BR/><BR/>GB: Scriptural reference please!! Or can I assume you don’t have one because you didn’t post it?<BR/><BR/>The Levitical, Aaronic or lesser priesthood has always been an appendage to the higher or Melchizedek priesthood. So where ever the Melchizedek priesthood is had, the Aaronic/lesser by default is also there. (see Anon post 11:17 pm Feb 14).<BR/><BR/>All of this is interesting, but the main issue is authority or in your case the lack thereof. <BR/>Rom10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? <BR/> 15 And how shall they preach, except they be SENT? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! (emphasis mine).<BR/><BR/>Need I repost Heb 5:4?<BR/><BR/>So the Tx4 where does your preacher get his authority? And how did he get it?<BR/><BR/>Tx4: This is doubly emphasised by Jesus our high Priest, not from the lineage of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah !<BR/><BR/>GB: Jesus not being from the lineage of Levi is independent from the continuation of the lesser priesthood. You are indeed grasping at straws here.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: It can not continue for this very same reason.<BR/><BR/>GB: Clearly the Bible indicates otherwise. It is ok with me if you don’t believe what the Bible says, but at least you should be honest enough to admit it to yourself and others. I wonder if this is also why you don’t want to discuss the foundation of the Christian church as put forth by the Bible. Could it be that you don’t believe what the Bible says about it either?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32378768013743917892008-02-18T21:42:00.000-06:002008-02-18T21:42:00.000-06:00Right, this is why the Catholic has a priesthood f...Right, this is why the Catholic has a priesthood from Peter. You must use a different bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62778639207349112702008-02-18T13:04:00.000-06:002008-02-18T13:04:00.000-06:00Dear GB,Thanks to Anon for his expansion on the te...Dear GB,<BR/><BR/>Thanks to Anon for his expansion on the term 'levitical law'. This is just an alternative terminology for the temporary 'old covenant law / book of Moses / law of Moses / book of the law / ceremonial law /mosaic law'. They are all one and the same, and yes I agree they were all done away with at the cross as illustrations of typology that in one way or another point to Jesus. <BR/><BR/>None of them are to be confused in any way with the '10 Commandment law / Decalogue / Royal law / law of Love / Eternal law', which are all just as important today as the day they were presented. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately the order of the 'levitical priesthood' was also 'disannulled' at the same time and for the same reasons.<BR/><BR/>This is doubly emphasised by Jesus our high Priest, not from the lineage of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah ! It can not continue for this very same reason.<BR/><BR/>Teranno4x4Teranno4x4https://www.blogger.com/profile/08907963173025554195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62022797234485961102008-02-15T23:07:00.000-06:002008-02-15T23:07:00.000-06:00T4x4, said:"Please show me where in the Bible (aft...T4x4, said:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"Please show me where in the Bible (after the life of Jesus), that the 'priesthood' is mentioned (in terms of Christianity, not Judaism) and contradicts this terminology for my belief of this passage in Hebrews."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>This priesthood is identical with the office of elder. In fact, the term "priest" is simply a shortened, English version of the Greek word for "elder" -- presbuteros -- as any dictionary will confirm. This is any some Old Catholic translations render the word as "priests" where Protestant Bibles have "elder." For example, in the Douay-Rheims Bible (the Catholic equivalent of the King James Version) we read: <BR/>"For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee" (Titus 1:5).<BR/><BR/>"Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him" (James 5:14-15).<BR/>We can see the fusion of the two concepts in Romans 15:15-16. In the New International Version of this passage, we read: <BR/><BR/>"I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty [literally, "the priestly work"] of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-5466136720398091032008-02-15T03:05:00.000-06:002008-02-15T03:05:00.000-06:00Levitical Priesthood is an office of level in the ...Levitical Priesthood is an office of level in the Aaronic Priesthood. If you look close this priesthood is in charge of passing the sacrament of flesh and blood of Christ just as they did before Christ came. He was the true sacrificial lamb. The Levitical lamb was symbolic just as the Bread and Wine are emblems (symbols) of Christ payment for our sins. I can see how others say this priesthood has been done away with, however it is just as supportive in the scriptures that it continued as part of Christ functioning Church (Synagogue). As it is also traced through the Catholic Church because it was something important as part of the functioning Christ Church. Those that are saved by grace see no need for anything else once they have been saved because nothing further is needed. They don't see the need because they don't want to see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12518738805789997422008-02-15T01:17:00.000-06:002008-02-15T01:17:00.000-06:00As a result of the failure of the Israelites to ob...As a result of the failure of the Israelites to observe the gospel law administered by Moses under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Lord gave an additional law of performances and ordinances and “confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations” to administer it. This priesthood was of lesser power and authority than the priesthood of Melchizedek, and was used to administer the outward ordinances, particularly as characterized by the ceremonies of the law of Moses. The terms Aaronic and Levitical are sometimes used synonymously although there are some specific differences in the offices existing within the Levitical Priesthood. For example, the lesser priesthood was conferred only upon men of the tribe of Levi. However, within the tribe, only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of priest. And, still further, from the firstborn of Aaron’s sons (after Aaron) was selected the high priest (or president of the priests). Thus Aaron and his sons after him had greater offices in the Levitical Priesthood than did the other Levites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-70971024204465890522008-02-14T20:53:00.000-06:002008-02-14T20:53:00.000-06:00Tx4: Most of what you wrote either you chose not t...Tx4: Most of what you wrote either you chose not to understand my comment or preferred to split hairs <BR/><BR/>GB: I have read and reread your statement and I still don’t have a clue what you meant by it. In the interest of trying to communicate one on one, I let you know that and gave you an opportunity to help me understand. If that caused you a problem, there isn’t much I can do about that.<BR/><BR/>I try to be very precise in what I am writing. I saw what I perceived to be an inaccurate attribution to the Holy Ghost as the source of authority. I felt the need to correct it. If you saw it as splitting hairs, then so be it.<BR/><BR/>The problem we have here, is much, if not most of the information about the priesthood that is available is from extra-Biblical sources. I understand that you don’t accept those sources so to show respect for your belief, I refrain from introducing them.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: Please show me somewhere in the NT (after the life of Jesus and not referring to Jesus) when any priest is mentioned in human form. <BR/><BR/> GB: And as I said before the Bible has insufficient information to resolve the issues of this topic. Unfortunately there wasn’t included in it a “Priesthood Handbook”. And none of the gospels or epistles or Revelation were written to be such a handbook. And as you know lack of evidence isn’t proof of absence.<BR/><BR/>But we do have this in Hebrew 5 (with my comments)<BR/> 1For every high priest taken (notice the non use of the past tense “was taken”) from among men is (notice the non use of the past tense “was”) ordained for men in things pertaining to (notice the non use of the past tense “that pertained to”) God, that he may offer (notice the non use of the past tense “offered”) both gifts and sacrifices for sins: <BR/> 2Who can (notice the non use of the past tense “did” or “could”) have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are (notice the non use of the past tense “were”) out of the way; for that he himself also is (notice the non use of the past tense “was”) compassed with infirmity. <BR/> 3And by reason hereof he ought (notice the non use of the past tense “did” or “should have”), as for the people, so also for himself, to offer (notice the non use of the past tense “offered”) for sins. <BR/> 4And no man taketh (notice the non use of the past tense “took”) this honour unto himself, but he that is (notice the non use of the past tense “was”) called of God, as was Aaron. <BR/><BR/>Sometimes what is not said is as important as what is said. If it was, as you suggest, the author of Hebrews easily could have and should have used past tense verbs in these verses. To me the fact that the author didn’t use past tense is very strong evidence that the order of Melchizedek continues.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: This is also why the order of Melchizadek stopped with Jesus . . . .<BR/><BR/>GB: An unsupported assertion. And as mentioned earlier, why spend so much effort explaining it if it wasn’t to continue?<BR/><BR/>Tx4: It is a type relating to the real deal - embodied in Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>GB: Who we are to emulate by living worthy to be called to join this order of the priesthood.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: Exactly the same reason why the sacrificial system and the ceremonial laws also finished after the cross, because they were all types pointing to the real deal, Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>GB: To be more accurate it was the sacrifice for sin by the shedding of blood and the law of Moses that was “finished after the cross”. The law of sacrifice and the law of the Gospel of Jesus Christ continue. 1 Pet 2:5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>Those to whom Peter was writing were “an holy priesthood”. More evidence that the priesthood continued after the ascension. And they were to offer up spiritual sacrifices. So then the law of sacrifice continued after the ascension. That is interesting.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: A disannulling. A stronger term than “being changed” (v. 12). The law of the Levitical priesthood was designed to operate only until Jesus Christ, the great High Priest, took over His office. Then it was to be annulled.<BR/><BR/>GB: I disagree. The “disannulling” refers to the law of Moses (carnal commandments) not to the priesthood.<BR/>Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.<BR/><BR/>Rom 8:3For what the law (of Moses) could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:<BR/><BR/>It was the Law of Moses that was weak and unprofitable and disannulled.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, nowhere in the Bible do I find “the law of the Levitical priesthood”. Did you just make that up?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86407531011514881772008-02-14T12:35:00.000-06:002008-02-14T12:35:00.000-06:00Hi GB,Most of what you wrote either you chose not ...Hi GB,<BR/><BR/>Most of what you wrote either you chose not to understand my comment or preferred to split hairs .<BR/><BR/>For example -<BR/><BR/>"GB: I’m sorry, I don’t have a clue what you meant by that."<BR/><BR/>or <BR/><BR/> I stated : "Their 'power' was direct from the authority of the Holy Spirit (in the name of Jesus) and not of their own doing." <B>maybe I missed out the word 'acting' as in (acting in the name of Jesus) </B><BR/><BR/>GB wrote:<I> "Their “power” was direct from the authority of Jesus Christ to be more accurate. The Holy Ghost provided the guidance on when and where to use it as was promised by Jesus Christ. (See John 16:13)<BR/>Let us not forget this important aspect."</I><BR/><BR/>This I see as splitting hairs and choosing not to honour the meaning of my writing. I could also be as ungenerous and spout off verse after verse instead of trying to communicate one to one.<BR/><BR/>You are correct about your analogy. That is the whole reason why your believed doctrine of the 'keys' breaks down too in my humble opinion. Please show me somewhere in the NT (after the life of Jesus and not referring to Jesus) when any priest is mentioned in human form. <BR/><BR/>This is also why the order of Melchizadek stopped with Jesus - because of that very reason. It is a type relating to the real deal - embodied in Jesus Christ. Exactly the same reason why the sacrificial system and the ceremonial laws also finished after the cross, because they were all types pointing to the real deal, Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>More simply let us refer to Hebrews 7 to answer this very issue on authority and 'priesthood' :<BR/><BR/><I>11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? <BR/>12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. <BR/>13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. <BR/>14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. <BR/>15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, <BR/>16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. <BR/>17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. <BR/>18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.</I><BR/><BR/><B>A disannulling.</B> A stronger term than “being changed” (v. 12). The law of the Levitical priesthood was designed to operate only until Jesus Christ, the great High Priest, took over His office. Then it was to be annulled.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The priesthood need after Jesus is effectively 'cancelled'.<BR/><BR/>Please show me where in the Bible (after the life of Jesus), that the 'priesthood' is mentioned (in terms of Christianity, not Judaism) and contradicts this terminology for my belief of this passage in Hebrews.<BR/><BR/>Teranno4x4Teranno4x4https://www.blogger.com/profile/08907963173025554195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-57309622458215567242008-02-14T12:03:00.000-06:002008-02-14T12:03:00.000-06:00Dear Darion Alexander,There was no subtle threat m...Dear Darion Alexander,<BR/><BR/>There was no subtle threat made by me.<BR/><BR/>You wrote :"<I>but as was stated by Christ "they have a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof" which correctly describes the prior quotes made by our friend."</I><BR/><BR/>You made a judgement call based on a verse that I know very well and in context. It contains a very negative connotation to be applied amongst communicating 'Christians'.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to serve you a polite reminder that only God is our judge and jury so how can you claim on His behalf that I 'deny the power thereof'? That is not childish behaviour and does not reflect badly on my character however you may like to stick it on me.<BR/><BR/>Carry on if you so wish, but I have made my point.<BR/><BR/>It is a shame because I too have enjoyed the communication and looking at both perspectives.<BR/><BR/>Teranno4x4Teranno4x4https://www.blogger.com/profile/08907963173025554195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-18189899546419410632008-02-14T11:14:00.000-06:002008-02-14T11:14:00.000-06:00Tx4: . . . but these three attributes do not all e...Tx4: . . . but these three attributes do not all equate to the same authority. <BR/><BR/>GB: I didn’t express or imply that they equated “to the same authority”. But all of them are authority of one kind/level or another. If the ”=” bothers you, feel free to replace it with “is/are”.<BR/> <BR/>If no authority is had, it matters not how sincere ones efforts are, they will not be accepted by God. Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? <BR/> 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. <BR/><BR/>There are many other Bible scriptures that show the importance of authority. But what has already been presented should be sufficient. <BR/><BR/>I submit that authority is of primary concern. Without authority it is irrelevant what your doctrine is, because without authority your doctrine can NEVER be totally correct.<BR/><BR/>The “keys to my house” analogy is just that, an analogy. As with all analogies it breaks down at some point.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: Priestly functions yes - but as a member of the clergy or as a minister, it is not only reserved for a priesthood. <BR/><BR/>GB: I’m sorry, I don’t have a clue what you meant by that.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: This brings tomy mind similarities to medieval 'orders' that were also given 'authorities' by the roman church. 'Order of the knights of.... ' etc... <BR/><BR/>GB: I’m not sure what that has to do with our discussion.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: An order of anything is not what Jesus wanted. <BR/><BR/>GB: Apparently you are incorrect, because He was a member of an order Himself. Psalms 110:4, Heb 5:6,10, 6:20, 7:11, 17, 21.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: They could not act righteously if they were recognised to be of the 'order of the apostles'. <BR/><BR/>GB: Sorry, but that is an assertion without foundation. You seem to believe that pride and arrogance are automatically acquired characteristics when one is given Gods authority. You are applying worldly behavior to those who are not to be worldly. <BR/><BR/>The call of God is not a call to be served or elevated above others, but a call to serve others. No TRUE servant (or disciple, or apostle, or any holder of priesthood authority) is in it for self aggrandizement. See Luke 22:24-27 and Matt 23:11-12. After all, both we and they are to emulate Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: They were apostles by name only and not by status or position. <BR/><BR/>GB: That appears to contradict many of the scriptures that have already been quoted. Acts 1:22-26 makes it clear that apostleship was a position and that the authority of it could be passed on to another. (also see Acts 14:14, 1 Cor 12:28-29, Gal 1:1)<BR/><BR/>Tx4: Their 'power' was direct from the authority of the Holy Spirit (in the name of Jesus) and not of their own doing. <BR/><BR/>GB: Their “power” was direct from the authority of Jesus Christ to be more accurate. The Holy Ghost provided the guidance on when and where to use it as was promised by Jesus Christ. (See John 16:13)<BR/>Let us not forget this important aspect.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Tx4: Is it the priesthood that has the power to investiture or 'ordination' or is it the working of the Holy Spirit (in the name of Jesus) as I stated above? <BR/><BR/>GB: You are presenting a false dichotomy. The authority came from Jesus Christ. The direction or guidance on when and where to use it and share it/pass it on also comes from Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: Who really has the authority? <BR/><BR/>GB: ONLY those to whom it has been given.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43320892597305832772008-02-14T10:29:00.000-06:002008-02-14T10:29:00.000-06:00First, the whole pointing finger thing is very chi...First, the whole pointing finger thing is very childish and the subtle threat about accusations being a dangerous game to play is even more childish and really reflects on your character. If you want to continue to do that to yourself then by all means, do so. <BR/><BR/>As for limiting Christ, the same could be said for your comments. There is no assumption made about an order, the order was there when Christ ordained His Apostles, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Anon and GB pretty much cleared that up as well as the links on Jeff's site. The same assumption can be taken to say that there was no order put in place by Christ, but are you going saying that Christ did not put in order His Kingdom?<BR/><BR/>It's not up to you to give credit or not for the power of the Holy Ghost, because the gift of the Holy Ghost has to be given, as Peter and James did for the Saints that were baptized by Phillip because they had the authority to do so, given to them by Christ. One can feel the presence of the Holy Ghost, but without confirmation from one who held the office,role, whatever you feel to call it, of Apostle, one cannot receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Hence why Peter invited all those on the day of Pentecost who felt the HG and asked him what they should do and he invited them all to be baptized in the name of Christ and then they were confirmed.<BR/><BR/>But regardless, there have been some good commentary on this topic from both sides.Rob Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14002908733806585017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81879240806115385602008-02-14T10:05:00.000-06:002008-02-14T10:05:00.000-06:00Dear Darion Alexander,I do not misrepresent anythi...Dear Darion Alexander,<BR/><BR/>I do not misrepresent anything.<BR/><BR/>Unlike you I do not combine the authority as a 3 in one authority for keys, priesthood and ordination. I recognise them, but not in the same way that you group them as identical.<BR/><BR/>I could say the same about Jesus. Yes after His ascension He became God again. On earth He acted through no power of His own but by the power of the Father vested in Him. Why do we have to limit the constraints of appointing the apostles to the way that you describe. Do you too prefer to limit the actions of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>I know that God is a God of order and not chaos, but for humans to assume an order is another matter.<BR/><BR/>Accusations are a dangerous game to play...<BR/><BR/>Point the finger and there will be 4 pointing back at you.<BR/><BR/>If I give credit for power to the presence of the Holy Spirit (in the name of Jesus) , what part doesn't qualify by the last verse that you quoted regarding denial ?<BR/><BR/>Teranno4x4Teranno4x4https://www.blogger.com/profile/08907963173025554195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43943808882864554452008-02-14T08:07:00.000-06:002008-02-14T08:07:00.000-06:00T4x4 said:"If you give the keys of your house to a...T4x4 said:<BR/><BR/>"If you give the keys of your house to an individual that you trust - would you be pleased to learn that they passed on your keys to someone that you didn't know or that wasn't worthy to be trusted with them?"<BR/><BR/>If the person holding the keys is receiving revelation and talking with Christ, then Christ would instruct him on whom to ordain. You cannot suppose that Christ doesn't know the person receiving the keys or the ordination, since He is the Head of the Church and besides, He's a GOD, so how could he not know?<BR/><BR/>"They were apostles by name only and not by status or position. Their 'power' was direct from the authority of the Holy Spirit (in the name of Jesus) and not of their own doing. Let us not forget this important aspect."<BR/><BR/>This is a mere repositioning of conversation to try and shift the focus of the topic at hand. What would have been the purpose of Christ ordaining them "by the laying on of hands" if they were not set apart to some kind of official or priestly status? And what would have been the point to have others ordained under the hands of the Apostles to be Seventy's, Bishop's etc, if they were not as stated "by status or position"? <BR/><BR/>This statement is a misinterpretation of the authority given to the Apostles by Christ. The Apostles also confirmed members by the laying of hands to receive the Holy Ghost, so there was a distinction and an order among the members of the Church. "For God is a God or order, not a God of Chaos." This subject could go on and on, but there have been facts that have been plainly shown with the Bible, mind you, but as was stated by Christ "they have a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof" which correctly describes the prior quotes made by our friend.Rob Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14002908733806585017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-44283455659474345122008-02-14T06:51:00.000-06:002008-02-14T06:51:00.000-06:00Hi GB,I understood your answer and I can see where...Hi GB,<BR/><BR/>I understood your answer and I can see where you are coming from, but these three attributes do not all equate to the same authority. This is what I was trying to explaim myself.<BR/><BR/>Also :<BR/><BR/>a. If you give the keys of your house to an individual that you trust - would you be pleased to learn that they passed on your keys to someone that you didn't know or that wasn't worthy to be trusted with them ? My opinion is that you would want to have them returned by the person to whom you gave your trust....? This is where the authority provided comes into undoubtable question. The person to whom you have given your keys can not just presume that he then has the sole authority to your house. To sell it maybe, to have a party there, to let in some travellers, or just to live in it himself until you return. Only you have the power to make those choices - or not ? Maybe the world is different where you live.... ?<BR/><BR/>b. Priestly functions yes - but as a member of the clergy or as a minister, it is not only reserved for a priesthood. This brings tomy mind similarities to medieval 'orders' that were also given 'authorities' by the roman church. 'Order of the knights of.... ' etc... An order of anything is not what Jesus wanted. he wanted to break down religio barriers of this nature to get his disciples to act with humility number one. They could not act righteously if they were recognised to be of the 'order of the apostles'. They were apostles by name only and not by status or position. Their 'power' was direct from the authority of the Holy Spirit (in the name of Jesus) and not of their own doing. Let us not forget this important aspect.<BR/><BR/>c. Is it the priesthood that has the power to investiture or 'ordination' or is it the working of the Holy Spirit (in the name of Jesus) as I stated above? Who really has the authority? <BR/><BR/>Teranno4x4Teranno4x4https://www.blogger.com/profile/08907963173025554195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15828716769387751082008-02-13T20:59:00.000-06:002008-02-13T20:59:00.000-06:00"Why not a Reese's? "Reeses are the happening thin..."Why not a Reese's? "<BR/><BR/><BR/>Reeses are the happening thing. They are good when reading the BofM.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-48907776134359515152008-02-13T12:44:00.000-06:002008-02-13T12:44:00.000-06:00Tx4: How do you get to the same conclusion over 'k...Tx4: How do you get to the same conclusion over 'keys', 'priesthood' and 'ordained' ? Why must they be combined like you explain?<BR/><BR/>GB: If I give a key (to my house) to someone, I am giving them authority to enter at their will. I would only give them a key if I trusted them to use it wisely and in my interest. Therefore key = authority.<BR/><BR/>Priesthood is, by definition, authority to act for (or in the place of) God to perform certain functions/ordinances. Therefore priesthood = authority.<BR/><BR/>One receives the priesthood by ordination. And as I showed in my previous post, ordained = authorized.<BR/><BR/>I hope that answers your question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-34112926410881660742008-02-13T12:19:00.000-06:002008-02-13T12:19:00.000-06:00Dear GB,How do you get to the same conclusion over...Dear GB,<BR/><BR/>How do you get to the same conclusion over 'keys', 'priesthood' and 'ordained' ? Why <I>must</I> they be combined like you explain ?Teranno4x4https://www.blogger.com/profile/08907963173025554195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-13087666164347458142008-02-13T08:10:00.000-06:002008-02-13T08:10:00.000-06:00Anon,Why does it have to be crackers? Why not a R...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Why does it have to be crackers? Why not a Reese's? I prefer those over crackers.Rob Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14002908733806585017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40855251463582257732008-02-13T01:07:00.000-06:002008-02-13T01:07:00.000-06:00"Authority defined and by entry to the kingdom. It..."Authority defined and by entry to the kingdom. It is not Peter that has this role."<BR/><BR/>He gave Peter to bind on earth and in heaven. He trusted Peter and gave him that authority and Christ will honor His word to Peter. For you to say other wise is just refering to being forgiven of sin not saved in Gods kingdom. You always confused the two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8049802016217180202008-02-12T23:46:00.000-06:002008-02-12T23:46:00.000-06:00If you do a careful study on the concepts of a roy...If you do a careful study on the concepts of a royal PRIESTHOOD, twelve disciples gave them authority and power, order of Melchizedek priesthood, priests, deacons, apostles, prophets, bishops, keys, the book of Hebrews with the view that these events in total show there was a purposeful top down origination of churches at the time of Christ found in the bible. If you just look at it objectively you can only conclude that there was something there but we do not have the complete picture because it books of the bible were not written to be an instruction manual on how to set up and run the church. This is true with any topic. If someone decides to stop chasseing their tail around and around the bible like T4x4 and look other places it becomes even more clear that these above concepts of an organized priesthood with keys of authority did exist at that time. <BR/> <BR/>The big question is how did we get the bible? We obtained it from the Catholic church. If ye trace these concepts back through the Catholic church history and see where changes were make that may differ from the scriptures then we see that those that had the records that were closest to the source would know more that someone that just studies the bible in its present form. Only after people the this church abused this central authority did others feel the need to do away with any priesthood authority. This makes it easier to live with but not necessarily correct.<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>Because it is a reality that only two major religions clame this priesthood keys of authority and try or are faithful to the biblical scriptures in these concepts then you must conclude that it is the Catholics or the LDS church that have the true priesthood keys of authority .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2361285934552746202008-02-12T21:56:00.000-06:002008-02-12T21:56:00.000-06:00Tx4: I guess that it is understanding the level of...Tx4: I guess that it is understanding the level of authority bestowed and if that authority can be passed on. <BR/><BR/>GB: Unfortunately, the Bible is insufficient to clearly and totally resolve this issue. However there is a lot of information there that you are neglecting. And although I am no Bible scholar, I do have a basic understanding of the priesthood/authority and how it “can be passed on”.<BR/><BR/>Take Mark 3:14 And he ORDAINED twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,<BR/><BR/>And, John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ORDAINED you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. (emphasis mine)<BR/><BR/>Now what does ORDAIN mean?<BR/><BR/>From the American Heritage Dictionary;<BR/>or•dain <BR/>1. <BR/>a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on. <BR/>b. To authorize as a rabbi. <BR/>2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact. <BR/><BR/>So then, when one is ordained, one is given authority.<BR/><BR/>We also have this <BR/>Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. <BR/> 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.<BR/> <BR/>So to preach the Gospel “. . .no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” Heb 5:4 (See Exodus 28:1) <BR/><BR/>Called and ordained/authorized/given the priesthood. <BR/><BR/>In the kingdom of God, like any kingdom, authority comes from the top down. Those in higher authority have greater authority and greater (more) keys.<BR/><BR/>The Apostles had the greatest authority and keys given to them. They were general authorities and traveled from place to place preaching the gospel and organizing local churches (or what could be called branches of the greater/whole church).<BR/><BR/>Acts 6:2-6 clearly shows that as the church grew and the Apostles had less and less time to take care of the spiritual needs of the church they called and authorized (ordained) others to whom the Apostles delegated responsibilities. Notice how the authority was passed on, by the laying on of hands, which is the Biblical pattern.<BR/>Also see Acts 8:18, 13:2, 14:23, 16:4, 1 Tim 2:7, 4:14, and Titus 1:5.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: But then again 'authority' is not the only characteristic of the 'keys'. <BR/><BR/>GB: But with regard to the “keys of the kingdom” it is.<BR/><BR/>Tx4: Slight differences, but critical to our objective communication....<BR/><BR/>GB: You keep trying to force “the key of knowledge” into one of the “keys of the kingdom”, which it clearly isn’t<BR/><BR/>Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.<BR/><BR/>Obviously the “lawyers” couldn’t take away any authority/keys that God had bestowed on anyone. Nor could they limit Jesus’ ability to disseminate His word. The only thing the “lawyers” had control over were the writings of the prophets, or in other words, the scriptures. Now why would Jesus accuse them of removing important information from the scriptures? <BR/><BR/>T4x4 answered : I was talking about the foundation as it is clear that the Gospel is around the whole world today.<BR/><BR/>GB: Actually it isn’t that clear at all. Just who is authorized to preach the “Gospel”? And if one isn’t authorized and doesn’t understand the need for authority (as the Bible clearly shows), how can what they are preaching be the complete and true Gospel of Jesus Christ?<BR/><BR/>Tx4: Matt 28 18-20 states that Jesus is with us until the end of the world. <BR/><BR/>GB: Jesus wasn’t talking to you or me when He said that. Verse 16 clearly indicates that He was only talking to the eleven disciples (Apostles). Although it does stand to reason the He would stand by all whom have been properly authorized.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-55807902654642613602008-02-12T21:10:00.000-06:002008-02-12T21:10:00.000-06:00Anon....all I have to say is Dang skippy....very i...Anon....all I have to say is Dang skippy....very informative and not in the least bit condescending. Thank you.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>If you are all that and a box of crackers why don't produce a white paper on the subject and get back to us in a couple of years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49555151699795214182008-02-12T14:20:00.000-06:002008-02-12T14:20:00.000-06:00Dear GB,"I will say that it is obvious that the ke...Dear GB,<BR/><BR/>"<I>I will say that it is obvious that the keys of the kingdom from which derive the power to seal and loose were given by Jesus to unnamed disciples (presumably the Apostles) as clearly stated in Matt 18:18. Notice the context. For it is clear that he is talking to more than just Peter.</I> <BR/><BR/>I looked up some other definitions of these verses to find myself backed up and slightly corrected in my belief. I guess that it is understanding the level of authority bestowed and if that authority can be passed on. In that instance I am correct, but excluding authority from the 'keys' then I am corrected. But then again 'authority' is not the only characteristic of the 'keys'. Slight differences, but critical to our objective communication....<BR/><BR/>Matt 16 <BR/>19. <B><I>The keys</I></B>. The “keys” to the kingdom of heaven are the words of Christ (John 1:12; 17:3). It is important to note that Christ Himself speaks of the “key” here referred to as “the key of knowledge” of how to enter the kingdom (see Luke 11:52). The words of Jesus are “spirit” and “life” to all who receive them (see John 6:63). It is the words of Christ that bring eternal life (see John 6:68). The word of God is the key to the new-birth experience (1 Peter 1:23).<BR/>As the words spoken by Jesus convinced the disciples of His divinity, so their repeating of His words to other men, as His ambassadors, was to “reconcile” them to God (see 2 Cor. 5:18–20). The saving power of the gospel is the only thing that admits men and women into the kingdom of heaven. Christ simply bestowed upon Peter and all the other disciples (see on Matt. 18:18; John 20:23) the authority and power to bring men into the kingdom. It was Peter’s perception of the truth that Jesus is indeed the Christ that placed the “keys” of the kingdom in his possession and let him into the kingdom, and the same may be said of all Christ’s followers to the very close of time. The argument that Christ bestowed upon Peter a degree of authority greater than, or different from, that which He gave to the other disciples, is without scriptural basis (see on Matt. 16:18). As a matter of fact, among the apostles it was James and not Peter who exercised administrative functions over the early church in Jerusalem (see Acts 15:13, 19; cf. chs. 1:13; 12:17; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 2:9, 12). Upon at least one occasion Paul “withstood” Peter “to the face” for a wrong course of action (see Gal. 2:11–14), which he certainly would not have done had he known anything about Peter’s enjoying the rights and prerogatives that some now claim for him upon the basis of Matt. 16:18, 19.<BR/><B>Kingdom of heaven.</B> As frequently used throughout the ministry of Christ, the “kingdom of heaven” here refers to the kingdom of divine grace in the hearts of those who become its citizens, here and now (see on chs. 4:17; 5:2). No one can ever hope to enter the future kingdom of glory (see on ch. 25:31, 34) who has not first entered the present kingdom of His grace.<BR/>Bind. The entire statement reads literally, “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” The meaning evidently is this, that the church on earth will require only what heaven requires and will prohibit only what heaven prohibits. This seems to be the clear teaching of the Scriptures (see on Matt. 7:21–27; Mark 7:6–13). As the apostles went forth to proclaim the gospel, according to the commission entrusted to them (see Matt. 28:19, 20), they were to teach converts “to observe all things whatsoever” Christ had commanded—no more and no less.<BR/>To extend the meaning of “bind” and “loose” to the authority to dictate what members of the church may believe and what they may do, in matters of faith and practice, is to read into these words of Christ more than He meant by them, and more than the disciples understood by them. Such a claim God does not sanction. Christ’s representatives on earth have the right and the responsibility to “bind” whatever has been “bound in heaven” and to “loose” whatever has been “loosed in heaven,” that is, to require or to prohibit whatever Inspiration clearly reveals. But to go beyond this is to substitute human authority for the authority of Christ (see on Mark 7:7–9), a tendency that Heaven will not tolerate in those who have been appointed to the oversight of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven on earth.<BR/><BR/>Matt18<BR/>18. <B>Whatsoever ye shall bind</B>. See on ch. 16:19. Here the power of “binding” and “loosing” is committed to “the church” (see on ch. 18:17). And even here Heaven’s ratification of the decision on earth will take place only if the decision is made in harmony with the principles of Heaven. All who deal with erring brethren should ever remember that they are dealing with the eternal destiny of souls, and that the results of their work may well be eternal.<BR/><BR/><BR/>GB said : <I>I am still looking for a Bible verse that shows were Peter passed “on the theology of the Gospel to the WHOLE WORLD”. It is that “whole world” part that that I was talking about." </I><BR/><BR/>T4x4 answered : I was talking about the foundation as it is clear that the Gospel is around the whole world today. There are possibly only tiny pockets of civilisation not to have heard the message. Matt 28 18-20 states that Jesus is with us until the end of the world. Why then would His authority be given to Peter and others following Peter if He is still presiding over us ?<BR/><BR/>Could it be something different that he gave to Peter as I have suggested?<BR/><BR/>In respect to John 14:6, this does say everything about the authority of Jesus. No man goes to the Father axcept through Him. We are not worthy. Jesus is the sole authority to 'present us faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy'. Authority defined and by entry to the kingdom. It is not Peter that has this role.Teranno4x4https://www.blogger.com/profile/08907963173025554195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12039172611656925282008-02-12T13:28:00.000-06:002008-02-12T13:28:00.000-06:00Anon....all I have to say is Dang skippy....very i...Anon....all I have to say is Dang skippy....very informative and not in the least bit condescending. Thank you.Rob Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14002908733806585017noreply@blogger.com