Posted on 07/16/2005 12:22:35 AM PDT by nickcarraway
An encounter with a Bedouin robber in a desert valley has led to what one Israeli archaeologist described as one of the most important biblical finds from the region in half a century.
Professor Chanan Eshel, an archaeologist from Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, said yesterday that the discovery of two fragments of nearly 2,000-year-old parchment scroll from the Dead Sea area gave hope to biblical and archaeological scholars, frustrated by a dearth of material unearthed in the region in recent years, that the Judean desert could yet yield further artefacts.
"No more scrolls have been found in the Judean desert since 1965. This encourages scholars to believe that if they bother to excavate, survey and climb they will still find things in the Judean desert. The common knowledge has been that there is nothing left to find there," Prof Eshel said. The two small pieces of brown animal skin, inscribed in Hebrew with verses from the Book of Leviticus, are said by Prof Eshel to be from "refugee" caves in Nachal Arugot, a canyon near the Dead Sea, where Jews hid from the Romans in the second century.
The scrolls are being tested by Israel's Antiquities Authority.
Prof Eshel said he was first shown the fragments last year in an abandoned police station near the Dead Sea. A Bedouin had been offered $20,000 (£11,000) on the black market and wanted an evaluation.
I made a typo, too.
I meant Matthew 19:28 talking about the 12 tribes, not 16.
Sorry.
You may be stuck in the impression that the word "church" can only refer to one assembly or formation of people.
Then, to a member of the LDS organization, what is Matthew 16:13-19 all about?
You have created an elaborate scenario, but a much simpler and biblical explanation exists. For your personal interpretation to be correct, you need to ignore parts of scripture.
First, let’s look at Matthew 16:16-19 “He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The keys to the kingdom of heaven is drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts" (Isaiah 22:22). There are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. The keys here show the power of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. The promise of the keys is given to Peter alone, and that Peter's exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between the church and the kingdom of heaven.
Now, here’s the interesting part, and the part of scripture that you need to ignore to make your personal interpretation work. The word “Church” in Matthew 16 is from the Greek “ekklesia.” This word “ekklesia” occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice).
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church (ekklesia). If he refuses to listen even to the church (ekklesia), then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
It is the same church in Matthew 16 and 18. Here it refers not to the entire church of Jesus, as in Matthew 16:18, but to the local congregation of the same Church.
Clearly, the Church in Matthew 16 is the Church Christ said he will build. The Church of Matthew 16 is the same Church of Matthew 18.
Ponder that for a very good while.
"None of this has anything to do with a Roman Catholic "Church,"
Something else to ponder.
Christ wanted us to be one, “perfectly united in mind and thought.”
“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” 1 Cor 1:10-13 We cannot be one if everyone brings his own version of the Truth. If you substitute Luther for Appollos, or Calvin for Paul, or King Henry for Cephas, you see that the “new” religions and interpretations of scripture that sprang from the reformation are anti-scriptural.
Christ was not stupid. He knew He had to establish a visible Church with authority to keep people from twisting His words. He did just that.
For answers, you should go to “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” Which is not the Bible. “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:14-15
You go to the Church. THE church, the one Jesus promised to guide into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that His Church teaches only the truth. And teaches with authority - "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16)
>>Then, to a member of the LDS organization, what is Matthew 16:13-19 all about?
By inference, you are asking if we think we are the “Only True Church”
I could go lots of directions with this almost all of them would be controversial. The easiest answer is, whether Christ was saying he was building his church on Peter, or on Revelation, is irrelevant to our position.
Christ’s church was created. The semantics 2000 years later are not that important to us.
There was an apostasy as was prophesied. (This IS important to us) Since the apostasy happened, Christ’s authority was lost, and was restored through a prophet, as is God’s way. This restoration was prophesied anciently. Mormons do not count on peter specifically, and the passing down of authority from him to get authority now.
Before you even ask, Yes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Nicknamed “Mormons” because of our use of the Book by that mane) is the “True” church. (Yep, we are the “TRUE” church, just like everyone else ;-)
So, where does that leave everyone else?
Protestants are well meaning, nice people who are trying to do the right thing, but don’t have the authority, or revelation, to do it. (That is basically the churches position on most religions).
Catholics are the remnant of the original church and are well meaning, Nice people who have lost the way, and now lack the authority and revelation to find their way back to the fold.
Muslims… (Well they started out as worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) are mostly well meaning… (Do I need to finish this?)
I do NOT want to give the opinion that I am pushing this (I hate those My Truth is Truer than your Truth, Neener Neener Neener arguments). I was asked, or at least inferred the question, of what the “Logic” was behind the Mormon Church’s position on being the true church. I think the difference in Logic is Striking from most Protestants, and is one of the reasons we don’t fit into the Preconceived “Christian” mold a lot of people have, even though we most certainly worship Christ.
Have I beat the question to death yet?
So, will the new Jerusalem, Zion, be established in the State of Utah?
Was the Garden of Eden somewhere around present day Missouri?
Which one?
Mohammed or Joseph Smith?
>>Which one?
>>Mohammed or Joseph Smith?
LOL!
That would depend on who you ask.
You looking at me?
Joseph Smith (At least Mormons havn't been blowing people up :-)
>>Which one?
>>Mohammed or Joseph Smith?
BTW: Moslems do not accept Christ as the Savior of this earth, that would be Mohamed to them.
JFTR: We believe in Jesus Christ as the Author of not just our salvation, but the salvation of the whole earth.
Zion is Jerusalem, literally, in Israel. When the Bible speaks of the Throne of David and Zion, there is not reason given in the same contexts to immagine them being any place else. Zion is not in Utah but just a nice drive from the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, and not too far from the Jordan River. The Garden of Eden was in the Tigris/Euphrates area . . . where our troops are today.
Oh, by the way, the reason for the wars in the Tigris-Euphrates region (and Palestine): They are the physical, carnal manifestations of a much higher and greater spiritual warfare that cannot be understood by those who think that the Bible is just another nice piece of literature but needn't be taken seriously.
Investigate the Masonic connection and check that again.
What say you DelphiUser?
Let me see if I understand correctly:
So the "new" Zion, will be in Missouri.
Will the new Jerusalem, which the revalator saw coming down from heaven, will that also be in Missouri?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.