What IS MATT 16:18 REALLY TEACHING ?

[concretecamper]

And did his disciples ask, "How can this man be made of wood?" As I said, In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh. Jesus Himself, His Body and His Blood, is the "New Covenant" or "New Testament." As the new books of the Bible were being chosen by the Catholic Church, those books began to be called "books of the New Testament." The first High Priest, Melchizedek, offered mere bread and wine. This prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus.

Precisely. No one asked if He was wood, no one asked Him if He was vegetation when He called himself a vine. No one left Him in either of those 2 instances because they knew He was speaking figuratively.

It seems many today think they know what Jesus meant better than those who were there. Such arrogance.

 

[WilliamC]

And did his disciples ask, "How can this man be made of wood?" As I said, In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago."

The chapter is filled with terms of eating. The purpose that lead Jesus to talk in symbolism as He did.

The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe,

Of course, it was forbidden in Jewish law.

in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate

Yes, i see that. There are only 6 uses of the present participle trogo in the N.T. John never used the present stem esthio in any of his books which begs the question, from many inquiries. Did John routinely use the word trogo in place of the more common present stem esthio?

--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh.

Where does Jesus say..it was literal?

Jesus Himself, His Body and His Blood, is the "New Covenant" or "New Testament."

It is, having sacrificed (death) Himself on the cross to enact the New Covenant. Heb. 9:14-17

As the new books of the Bible were being chosen by the Catholic Church, those books began to be called "books of the New Testament."

The OT was chosen long before that time. The Council of Jamnia.
The New writings were already in the works and being chosen long before the RCC came on the stage.
Pauls epistles were already being classed with the OT Scriptures as authentic. IIPet 3:15,16 and Paul was already organizing a meeting of the other writers..Luke, Mark, and instructs Timothy that when he comes as well, to bring the books, but especially the parchments. IITim. 4:11-13 This meeting practically makes up the NT writers apart from a few of the gospel writers.

The first High Priest, Melchizedek, offered mere bread and wine. This prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus.

Offered?...brought forth. Gen.14:18 doesn't say it was an offering, could have been mere food.
Christ is compared to Melchizedeks order... there is no comparison of a type sacrifice meeting an anti-type. Jesus replaced any kind of priesthood as his will go on for ever. (No earthly priests needed, no more sacrifices, no other mediator..) Blessings Valletta

 

[RileyG]

He said He was a door as well.

Look at what the early Church taught

Blessings

 

[Valletta]

The chapter is filled with terms of eating. The purpose that lead Jesus to talk in symbolism as He did.

It seems like you failed to examine the original Greek text. As I explained, in John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh.

 

[Valletta]

The New writings were already in the works and being chosen long before the RCC came on the stage.

False. The Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. Once the books were written a number, such as the Gospels, were well accepted for readings at mass. But there were differences as to some readings at mass from area to area. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries.

 

[WilliamC]

False. The Catholic Church existed before one word of the NT was written. Once the books were written a number, such as the Gospels, were well accepted for readings at mass. But there were differences as to some readings at mass from area to area. The process of the Catholic Church choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. Blessings!

 

[WilliamC]

Look at what the early Church taught

Blessings

I have. Thanks

 

[WilliamC]

It seems like you failed to examine the original Greek text. As I explained, in John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh.

No i heard you. I wrote: There are only 6 uses of the present participle trogo in the N.T. John never used the present stem esthio in any of his books which begs the question, from many ... Did John routinely use the word trogo in place of the more common present stem esthio? Blessings

 

[WilliamC]

Precisely. No one asked if He was wood, no one asked Him if He was vegetation when He called himself a vine. No one left Him in either of those 2 instances because they knew He was speaking figuratively.

It seems many today think they know what Jesus meant better than those who were there. Such arrogance.

I think we can clearly see the arrogance. Thanks

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I would be interested my friend, in seeing where Christ spoke plainly about this transubstantiation. Blessings!

Well, first off, you can stop putting words in my mouth. Because Lutherans reject the doctrine of transubstantiation does not mean that we reject the doctrine the real presence of His very body and blood in the Eucharist. Neither do we hold what some protestants call consubstantiation. Because Jesus himself commanded us to eat and drink saying "this is" My body and "this is" My blood; so we do it for the forgiveness of sins.

More like the Orthodox, for us it is what it is; the miracle and mystery of how it is is beyond us. The reformed (such as yourself) often will say that our Lord can not be present on our altar and in heaven at the same time, yet we all confess His omnipotence; at His discretion, he can be nowhere and or everywhere at His discretion. How is this possible; I don't know... but by faith and by the Holy Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit, I do know it to be true.

How do you view the Holy Spirit? The Trinity? God the Father? The way you speak of faith, it seems that the Father and the Holy Spirit have little if any part to play in one's salvation because we can all do it ourselves. How exactly do you see the Trinity within your faith?

 

[RileyG]

I have. Thanks

God bless

 

[concretecamper]

Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John the Evangelist, who is the Author of the Gospel that is currently being discussed. What did he teach Ignatius?

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (St. Ignatius)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

But some arrogant people, who call themselves Christians know better. And it looks like they incur death upon themselves.

 

[Minister Monardo]

It is no different than the metaphor in Jn.4:13,14- "But whoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. Or, Jn.10:9 "I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved; and shall go in and out, and be nourished".
There are many verses about abiding in Him, "Anyone who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ has not God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son". IIJn. 9 This must be just as important then. "If you keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Fathers commandments and abide in His love". Jn.15:10

All valuable scriptures to note. I would state that to abide in Him
requires one to be a living, contributing member of His Body
to enjoy the communion of the Spirit. This remains my key point.
The command is to "love one another" to abide in His Love.
1 Corinthians 12-14

Your idea of bread and wine being Christ's real flesh and blood as being salvific...does not stand up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures.

Not my idea, never voiced it. You are mistaking me for someone else. Happens.

No mention of a cup of salvation.

A reference to the Psalmist 116:12 & 13
What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
Not everyone is versed in Messianic scriptures from the OT.
Didn't mean to throw you a curve.
Keep your front shoulder down.

It doesn't even mention it is a necessity for anything. Christ stated that eating the bread and drinking the wine was done simply in a remembrance 11:24,25. The communion represented the new covenant in Christ's blood vs.25, and Paul elaborates in saying that "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do proclaim the Lord's DEATH till He come". vs.26.
As I recall, the text in Lk.22:20 says it was to be blood that was SHED, as does Mk.14:24 and Mt.26:28.
Christ's blood was not shed at the Last Supper...it happened at the cross. So the New Covenant did not take take affect until Christ died. See Heb. 9:15,16,17 "And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first agreement they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, For where a covenant is, there MUST also be of necessity be the DEATH of the testator. For a covenant is of force AFTER men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives". Your idea of bread and wine being Christ's real flesh and blood as being salvific...does not stand up to the scrutiny of the Scriptures.

Here you are way off. First, "simply a remembrance" shows a real lack of comprehension concerning memorials and remembrances. There is a reason this is one, not the other. As to your "simply" assessment, you have not fully studied chapter 11 of 1st Corinthians as an essential document.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread
and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks]in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself,
not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

Simply a life and death matter that pertains to judgment with regards to your commitment to fellowship and the Lord's Table. You argue vehemently against the doctrine of transubstantiation, but you fail to rightly grasp the significance of the breaking of bread, as this is not ritual or metaphysical, it is the proper fellowship of the saints, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

It is no different than the metaphor in Jn.4:13,14- "But whoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. Or, Jn.10:9 "I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved; and shall go in and out, and be nourished".
There are many verses about abiding in Him, "Anyone who does not abide in the doctrine of Christ has not God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son". IIJn. 9 This must be just as important then. "If you keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Fathers commandments and abide in His love". Jn.15:10

To reiterate, these are all valuable verses with regards to our relationship with the Holy Spirit, and to the Father and the Son as well. An excellent point indeed to include the oft overlooked 2 John. Once again, to abide, and be in Christ must carry over into our relationship with the saints. All these verses must be applied, not just to ourselves, but to our relationship, our role, in the Body. This is in Christ. This is abiding under the Anointing. And most importantly, this is the true and proper comprehension of "who eats my body and drinks my blood abides in Me and Me in them". ALL is for the edification of the Body. Of course, we are also edified, by our connection to the Lord found in our members.
1 Co 12:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

This we must absolutely partake of, and is referenced metaphorically as eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. The rest of this debate I find to be unedifying and will remain on the sidelines. My post was to emphasis fellowship, not take sides in a body and blood debate.
What happened to the actual topic of this thread anyway?
Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep.
Matthew 24:
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he comes shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

 

[The Liturgist]

All valuable scriptures to note. I would state that to abide in Him
requires one to be a living, contributing member of His Body
to enjoy the communion of the Spirit. This remains my key point.
The command is to "love one another" to abide in His Love.
1 Corinthians 12-14

Not my idea, never voiced it. You are mistaking me for someone else. Happens.



A reference to the Psalmist 116:12 & 13
What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
Not everyone is versed in Messianic scriptures from the OT.
Didn't mean to throw you a curve.
Keep your front shoulder down.


Here you are way off. First, "simply a remembrance" shows a real lack of comprehension concerning memorials and remembrances. There is a reason this is one, not the other. As to your "simply" assessment, you have not fully studied chapter 11 of 1st Corinthians as an essential document.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread
and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks]in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself,
not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

Simply a life and death matter that pertains to judgment with regards to your commitment to fellowship and the Lord's Table. You argue vehemently against the doctrine of transubstantiation, but you fail to rightly grasp the significance of the breaking of bread, as this is not ritual or metaphysical, it is the proper fellowship of the saints, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

To reiterate, these are all valuable verses with regards to our relationship with the Holy Spirit, and to the Father and the Son as well. An excellent point indeed to include the oft overlooked 2 John. Once again, to abide, and be in Christ must carry over into our relationship with the saints. All these verses must be applied, not just to ourselves, but to our relationship, our role, in the Body. This is in Christ. This is abiding under the Anointing. And most importantly, this is the true and proper comprehension of "who eats my body and drinks my blood abides in Me and Me in them". ALL is for the edification of the Body. Of course, we are also edified, by our connection to the Lord found in our members.
1 Co 12:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

This we must absolutely partake of, and is referenced metaphorically as eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. The rest of this debate I find to be unedifying and will remain on the sidelines. My post was to emphasis fellowship, not take sides in a body and blood debate.
What happened to the actual topic of this thread anyway?
Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep.
Matthew 24:
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he comes shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

Out of curiosity, are you a member of a church which celebrates the Eucharist weekly, such as the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the related, more conservative Church of Christ (basically the Stone/Campbell movement)?

Also, by the way, in your post, some of the text you colored as black. I suggest not doing that, or conversely, coloring text white, because either option will cause readability problems for members using either the Dark theme or the Light theme for the forum.

I mysself use the dark theme to reduce glare and eyestrain from reading the site; I find that on my iPads, since the iPad Pro of 2016, for prolongued reading, it is usually better to either use light letters on a dark grey background, or alternately to use dark letters on a beige or light grey or mint green background.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Out of curiosity, are you a member of a church which celebrates the Eucharist weekly, such as the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the related, more conservative Church of Christ (basically the Stone/Campbell movement)?

Also, by the way, in your post, some of the text you colored as black. I suggest not doing that, or conversely, coloring text white, because either option will cause readability problems for members using either the Dark theme or the Light theme for the forum.

I mysself use the dark theme to reduce glare and eyestrain from reading the site; I find that on my iPads, since the iPad Pro of 2016, for prolongued reading, it is usually better to either use light letters on a dark grey background, or alternately to use dark letters on a beige or light grey or mint green background.

I am not interested in discussing denominational practices,
nor am I familiar with the ones you mention.
Thank you for the constructive comments of posting. Good to know.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Don't be too hard on us Lutherans; Sola Scriptura is only one of the the five Solas; we value apostolic tradition very highly which is why we Confessional Lutherans have retained the use of the western form of the Mass; just not the traditions of men so much. Likewise holding to the real presence.

I will always go out of my way to be kindly towards good and faithful Lutherans. My comment is more a matter for the folk who like to hear their own voices before any others. Who dislike popes and councils but love their own opinions.

 

[RileyG]

I am not interested in discussing denominational practices,
nor am I familiar with the ones you mention.
Thank you for the constructive comments of posting. Good to know.

Church of Christ (conservative) and Disciples of Christ (liberal) both celebrate weekly Communion, albeit they see it as a memorial/symbolic view. They are from the Stone/Campbell movement which broke away from Presbyterianism. Interesting enough, the original followers did not consider themselves part of a denomination but simply called themselves Christian.

 

[WilliamC]

Well, first off, you can stop putting words in my mouth.

If I have offended you, it was not my intention. My apologies. Apologetic's can get messy sometimes.

Because Lutherans reject the doctrine of transubstantiation does not mean that we reject the doctrine the real presence of His very body and blood in the Eucharist.

I did not know you were a Lutheran. I am somewhat aware that you cling not to transubstantiation, nor to consubstantiation, but believe the presence in there in spite of the appearance.

Neither do we hold what some protestants call consubstantiation. Because Jesus himself commanded us to eat and drink saying "this is" My body and "this is" My blood; so we do it for the forgiveness of sins.

Sorry, but SHED blood, as on the cross(Christ's death, the sacrifice) is the price for forgiveness, or remission of sins, Heb. 9:22, not the bread and wine at the last supper, before the cross. Mt. 26-28 ; Mk.14:24 ; Lk.22:20 (Nor any bread or wine afterwards).
Rom. 5:8-11 ; I Cor. 15:1-4, 17 ; Col.1:13-22 ; Heb. 9:15-17, 20, 26.

More like the Orthodox, for us it is what it is; the miracle and mystery of how it is is beyond us.

One of my close friends I played in a band with, was a Lutheran, and he couldn't exactly explain it either.

The reformed (such as yourself)

Oh, I never said I was a reformer. Though I was born from a modern mismash of different faiths, catholic, presbyterian, methodist, pentecostal, one relative a sda. I also come from a line of Waldensian's and Huguenots which I can trace back. I don't know what to call myself...I guess a seeker of real truth. A Christian. A historicist.

often will say that our Lord can not be present on our altar and in heaven at the same time, yet we all confess His omnipotence; at His discretion, he can be nowhere and or everywhere at His discretion.

I know Jesus said He would give us the Holy Spirit to be with us and guide us. I know Jesus was carried up into heaven as well. Romans also alludes to the fact that Jesus intercedes for us at the right hand of God, in heaven, and the Holy Spirit down here, intercedes in part by taking our prayers up to Him. Rom. 8:26,27, 34

How is this possible; I don't know... but by faith and by the Holy Scriptures with the aid of the Holy Spirit, I do know it to be true.

Well, a man stands behind what he believes until proven otherwise. May we all keep searching for more truth.

How do you view the Holy Spirit? The Trinity? God the Father? The way you speak of faith, it seems that the Father and the Holy Spirit have little if any part to play in one's salvation because we can all do it ourselves. How exactly do you see the Trinity within your faith?

All three obviously have a part to play and actively involved in the plan of salvation. And I never said that in one's salvation we can do it all ourselves. In my faith, it is all about what all 3 have done. Now who's putting words in one's mouth my friend? Jesus is the sacrifice on the cross, the high priest, the one who has the key of David forever, the mediator between God and man, the forgiver of sins, the lawyer, the judge...He takes up a substantial amount in the plan. The Holy Spirit has an important part as He is down here with us now. He helps bring us to conviction, repentance, dwells in us, intercedes as well with Jesus in a slightly lesser role, teaches all truth, whatever Jesus said while on this earth. The Father is on the throne, holding all things together. Christ will one day, at the end, deliver up the kingdom to the Father ICor. 15:24 ,and when all things shall be subdued, then the Son will be subject to the Father, that God may be all in all. vs.28.
That doesn't sound like a faith that see's the Father and the Holy Spirit as having a little role to play in one's salvation...does it? Blessings my friend.

 

[WilliamC]

Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John the Evangelist, who is the Author of the Gospel that is currently being discussed. What did he teach Ignatius?

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Smyrnaeans (St. Ignatius)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

But some arrogant people, who call themselves Christians know better. And it looks like they incur death upon themselves.

I know I don't put much, or little faith in any church father after the death of John at the end of the first century. That is why I trust only the Scriptures.
Incur death upon myself??? We shall see cc.

 

[WilliamC]

All valuable scriptures to note. I would state that to abide in Him
requires one to be a living, contributing member of His Body
to enjoy the communion of the Spirit. This remains my key point.
The command is to "love one another" to abide in His Love.
1 Corinthians 12-14

i agree. Good key point. right behind the greatest commandment.

Not my idea, never voiced it. You are mistaking me for someone else. Happens.

I apologize if I have did this.

A reference to the Psalmist 116:12 & 13
What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?
I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.
Not everyone is versed in Messianic scriptures from the OT.
Didn't mean to throw you a curve.
Keep your front shoulder down.

I can hit the curve. But I will still take your advise. Shoulder always down and ready.

Here you are way off. First, "simply a remembrance" shows a real lack of comprehension concerning memorials and remembrances. There is a reason this is one, not the other. As to your "simply" assessment, you have not fully studied chapter 11 of 1st Corinthians as an essential document.

I have heard it called a remembrance and a memorial. Christ stated to do it in remembrance of Him. (bring to mind, to remember)
Way off? ahhh...it is not salvific, but it does point to the success of the cross. We are never to shortchange that. Not much lacking.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread
and drink of the cup.
29 For he who eats and drinks]in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself,
not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

Unworthy manner: there were some who were eating in an unworthy manner vs.21,34 treating it as just a snack, not giving the respect for what the Lords Supper represents. That is the unworthy manner. To not accept what Christ did on the cross is indeed a judgement.

Simply a life and death matter that pertains to judgment with regards to your commitment to fellowship and the Lord's Table. You argue vehemently against the doctrine of transubstantiation, but you fail to rightly grasp the significance of the breaking of bread, as this is not ritual or metaphysical, it is the proper fellowship of the saints, and the communion of the Holy Spirit.

Life and death matter as rejecting and not respecting the sacrifice of Christ, what the meal represents. I grasp just fine mm

To reiterate, these are all valuable verses with regards to our relationship with the Holy Spirit, and to the Father and the Son as well. An excellent point indeed to include the oft overlooked 2 John. Once again, to abide, and be in Christ must carry over into our relationship with the saints. All these verses must be applied, not just to ourselves, but to our relationship, our role, in the Body. This is in Christ. This is abiding under the Anointing. And most importantly, this is the true and proper comprehension of "who eats my body and drinks my blood abides in Me and Me in them". ALL is for the edification of the Body. Of course, we are also edified, by our connection to the Lord found in our members.
1 Co 12:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

I agree. Great points

This we must absolutely partake of, and is referenced metaphorically as eating His flesh, and drinking His blood. The rest of this debate I find to be unedifying and will remain on the sidelines. My post was to emphasis fellowship, not take sides in a body and blood debate.

I concure. thank you for your input. Points well taken.

What happened to the actual topic of this thread anyway?

It was "what is Matt. 16-18 really teaching?" It appears it was about binding and loosing, but went awry.

Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep.
Matthew 24:
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he comes shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

Mat we all feed His sheep. Blessings