Hatrack River Forum: Matthew 16 (or, my spinoff of John's thread)

This is topic Matthew 16 (or, my spinoff of John's thread) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=023377

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :

Since John L deleted his thread before I got to reply, I thought I'd start this new thread which goes into a different direction anyway.

Most Mormons don't believe that the religion that Christ set up exactly mimics the modern LDS Church. After all, we are the Latter-Day Saints, not the Former-Day Saints.

Also, in refrence to Matthew 16:18
I would submit to you that perhaps Peter isn't the "Rock" that Jesus was talking about. After all, in verse 17 He says

quote:
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar•-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Then he says that upon this rock (emphasis mine) I will build my church. Jesus isn't talking about building the church on a particular person. Instead, I believe he's talking about building His church on the idea that a person can receive revelation from the Father that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matt 16:16) Hence the LDS church emphasises that personal revelation, not Peter, is the Rock on which Christ's church is built.

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :

Oh man, that passage gives me a headache.

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :

Yeah, I agree Yank. If only the Savior specified what antecedents his pronouns used . . . of course, if He were perfectly clear about everything, we wouldn't need to buy expensive Bible interpretation commentaries.

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :

then why would he name Simon "Peter" ?

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :

If you read Isaiah and Ezekiel, you'll find God did a lot of symbolic naming to express a point, to use as an illustration, and to keep in mind certain principals.

I believe Isaiah was commanded to name one of his sons "A Remnant Will Return" - does that make his son the Remnant that was prophesied about?

[ April 12, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]

Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :

quote:
then why would he name Simon "Peter" ?

And here we get into a *real* nasty discussion on the intricacies of Greek.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

quote:
if He were perfectly clear about everything, we wouldn't need to buy expensive Bible interpretation commentaries.

Hey Tom, how's that power-point Bible coming?

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :

*pokes Kat*

I thought you were heading out [Razz]

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :

My interpretation:

Peter was the rock, the foundation on which the church was built because of his role at Pentecost. It was Peter who recognized the Holy Spirit of God.

I don't believe there was a church until Pentecost, until then there were merely disciples and followers. They became a church after the Holy Spirit came down to guide them.

In the same chapter of Matthew, Christ tells Peter that he gives to him the keys to heaven, which may refer to his statement in Acts 2 that the doors of Heaven are unlocked and open to the Jews (and later acknowledges it was also open to the Gentiles)

Granted, there are lots of interpretations and mine may be incorrect - we'll all find out one day when we can ask the people who were there. [Razz]

For me though, I feel this interpretation fits the scripture and fits with me, when I meditate and pray on that passage, that's the interpretation I feel to be the right one.

Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :

No doubt Peter was a very important person in the early church. He delivered the sermon at Pentecost, and he also converted the first Gentile.

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :

[Eek!]

Adrian, the catholic church maintains the same idea--that the church wasn't a Church until Pentecost. o_O

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :

mack, that seems to make the most sense, though - doesn't it?

[Confused]

Are you saying that by agreeing with the catholics I may now be a heretic among the protestants! Egads!

[Wink]

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :

Adrian, welcome to the Dark Side. [Wink]

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :

Yank, what's nasty about it?

edit to add my own welcome to Belle [Big Grin]

[ April 12, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]