What Isn't a Doctrine of Man?

[LearningToLetGo]

I will try to answer this for you. The keys were NOT given to Peter alone. Jesus gives them to all those who make the same confession made by Peter and that is for those who know Christ as Saviour.

And yes.....Jesus was speking to Peter because Peter was the one who answered His question to all the disciples in verse #13.

It's too bad ancient authors did not follow the APA style guide for writing. If they had, perhaps there would be a footnote explaining that although this was a personal conversation between Peter and Jesus, the message equally applies to all mankind.

I do personally feel that the Bible must be taken in whole and not dissected into bits like this. After all, you can take a stanza here or a verse there and twist it pretty much any way you like -- and we do exactly that. But when you step back and look at the big picture you see a very clear message of God's love and mankind's fall and redemption, and that's what ultimately matters.

 

[Major]

It's too bad ancient authors did not follow the APA style guide for writing. If they had, perhaps there would be a footnote explaining that although this was a personal conversation between Peter and Jesus, the message equally applies to all mankind.

I do personally feel that the Bible must be taken in whole and not dissected into bits like this. After all, you can take a stanza here or a verse there and twist it pretty much any way you like -- and we do exactly that. But when you step back and look at the big picture you see a very clear message of God's love and mankind's fall and redemption, and that's what ultimately matters.

Agreed.

However......this is why people like me say that God speaks to us through His written Word.

Now, just to validate what we are saying....consider the 20th verse.

"Then charged He His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ".

Even though he was looking at Peter, and talking to Peter........"Then charged He His disciples".
They were standing there as well as Peter and listening!

 

[Musicmaster]

I agree that one must use a bit of common sense when reading the Bible. That said, the Bible literally shows Jesus telling Peter - and Peter alone - that he will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven. In light of this, where does a literal interpretation of the Bible end and a figurative interpretation begin? After all, we each have different thresholds for where we draw that line and some never draw it. Is this the source of the bulk of the schisms we see today?

Good question.

For context, let's look at...the context:

Matthew 16:13-16
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

So, in context, Jesus was addressing all the disciples, and if we dare take it upon ourselves to then say that He could not have addressed Peter only on the basis of the solidity to which his name points, by way of something solid, like the hardness of a pebble, and then shift His attention back to His general audience of disciples when speaking of the keys of the Kingdom handed over to them (you, in a general sense of His audience), that demands a level of knowledge that is beyond anything the text speaks to us about. There is no absolute transition in the grammar to suggest that His initial address to the disciples in general over to the person of Peter alone apart from the hardness, or solidity, to which his name and the word later applied, can be said to conclude the solid foundation of the Church upon that which is harder than clay, sand, and especially sandy loam.

Does that help? We have to look for absolute transitions in the grammar to surmise that the focus shifted and remained upon some thing or some one else when His treatise was a general lesson in revelation to all the disciples. They all worked miracles, and experienced miraculous things in the workings of their faith in casting out demons and healing.

The cults, on the other hand, simply have it all wrong, given the plain and simple language AND the rational basis for questioning ANY idea that the Church could ever have been built upon a mere mortal man. That just fails the acid test for credible construct in language and ability.

MM

 

[LearningToLetGo]

They were standing there as well as Peter and listening!

This is true. Absent the visual aspect of communication, however, we can't really read into this further meaning. For example, we can imagine Jesus looking at Peter and the other disciples then turning back to Peter to speak, then looking back to the remaining disciples to make sure they understood as well.

Something like this is probably how it played out, but at this point all we have are the written words so we can't know for certain.

This thread is about man-made doctrines and I feel this is a very good example of how well-meaning people can read the same words and come to different conclusions. I think it good to discuss such matters while understanding we may not convince one another to see it differently, and that's OK. I see all who turn to Christ as one body, regardless of the dialect of one's faith.

 

[Major]

This is true. Absent the visual aspect of communication, however, we can't really read into this further meaning. For example, we can imagine Jesus looking at Peter and the other disciples then turning back to Peter to speak, then looking back to the remaining disciples to make sure they understood as well.

Something like this is probably how it played out, but at this point all we have are the written words so we can't know for certain.

This thread is about man-made doctrines and I feel this is a very good example of how well-meaning people can read the same words and come to different conclusions. I think it good to discuss such matters while understanding we may not convince one another to see it differently, and that's OK. I see all who turn to Christ as one body, regardless of the dialect of one's faith.

You said........
" I see all who turn to Christ as one body, regardless of the dialect of one's faith."

AMEN! That is the basis of the church!!!

Now as for the thread........Personally I think that the idea that Jesus was speaking "Only" to Peter is the act od reading into what is written to validate what you want the Scripture to say.

I say that because there is "Nothing" whatsoever in the Scriptures to fuel the idea of Peter being more powerful or in charge than any of the other apostles. The thought that Jesu gave Peter the KEYS to the kingdom does not mean he was special.

But this interpretation is inconceivable since it finds itself in clear opposition to the context of this passage. Reading Matthew 16:18, we understand that the subject under discussion is not heaven itself, but the church. Therefore, Jesus spoke of the church as being the kingdom of heaven. This is shown not only in the context of Matthew 16:18, but it also is taught in many other passages throughout the New Testament (e.g., Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Hebrews 12:28).

There is no doubt that the “keys” represent the opportunities Peter would have to welcome the world, for the very first time, to the Christian age and to the kingdom of heaven—the church.

It was Peter, in Acts 2 who was he 1st to stand and preach......"Ye men of Israel who crucified the Son of God!

 

[Musicmaster]

This is true. Absent the visual aspect of communication, however, we can't really read into this further meaning. For example, we can imagine Jesus looking at Peter and the other disciples then turning back to Peter to speak, then looking back to the remaining disciples to make sure they understood as well.

Something like this is probably how it played out, but at this point all we have are the written words so we can't know for certain.

This thread is about man-made doctrines and I feel this is a very good example of how well-meaning people can read the same words and come to different conclusions. I think it good to discuss such matters while understanding we may not convince one another to see it differently, and that's OK. I see all who turn to Christ as one body, regardless of the dialect of one's faith.

Additionally, we can look at Revelation. If the keys to the kingdom were handed only to one man, then it seems reasonable that there would be something in the New Jerusalem that memorialized Peter alone, such as there might have been only one foundation stone rather than 12 with ALL the apostles names upon them collectively. Instead, the Lord constructed that city as a collective memorialization of all twelve tribes and all twelve apostles.

MM

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Additionally, we can look at Revelation.

Revelation is a strange book. I don't quite know what to make of it. It does cause a lot of strife among believers and is a great source of debate.

 

[Musicmaster]

Revelation is a strange book. I don't quite know what to make of it. It does cause a lot of strife among believers and is a great source of debate.

To an extent, you are correct. Yes. However, the city called the New Jerusalem, in and of itself, isn't a controversial object so far as I am aware when it comes to the controversies surrounding the book as a whole.

MM

 

[Major]

Revelation is a strange book. I don't quite know what to make of it. It does cause a lot of strife among believers and is a great source of debate.

Brother, it is not strange......just different. It must be remembered that John's book is difficult to understand because God showed him amazing things he'd never seen before, things that he couldn't always explain with words we can understand.

He was shown things that he had no understanding of and could not describe. He then wrote down as best he could what he saw. For example, he described strange creatures that had parts that looked like animals we have today, but we still can't imagine what they really look like.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

He was shown things that he had no understanding of and could not describe.

Quite true. This reminds me of an episode of Star Trek where Picard beamed a bronze-age woman up to his ship and attempted to explain to her that he and her were essentially the same, only separated by thousands of years of technological advancement. His words fell on deaf ears and in the end her people ended up worshiping him just the same. o_O

 

[Major]

Quite true. This reminds me of an episode of Star Trek where Picard beamed a bronze-age woman up to his ship and attempted to explain to her that he and her were essentially the same, only separated by thousands of years of technological advancement. His words fell on deaf ears and in the end her people ended up worshiping him just the same. o_O

Agreed.

John saw what he could not describe in words because his mind could not comprehind what he saw. Therefore he wrote in "Picture Language".

That is why we see Four Horsemen and A Harlot along with A Lamb. All of these are "symbols" and when we understand the symbols the door is opened.

You see brother, most of our mental pictures of Jesus have been shaped by the Gospels. In our mind’s eye, we see him as a baby in a manger, standing on the hillside teaching, or hanging on the cross.
But in the book of Revelation, John is given a vision of Jesus as he is, right now, today.

He is the glorified Son of God, eyes red as flame, cloaked in white garments and crowns on His head!

Seeing him as he is now, through John’s vivid record of his vision, builds our trust in him, heightens our attention to him, and expands our joy in him.