Peter has the keys?

[CeT-To]

He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? What does that mean? i dont understand ..anybody have an idea?

[Byblos]

[B. W.]

He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? What does that mean? i dont understand ..anybody have an idea?

First note the context of verse 19. This involves awaking to the reality of who and what Chirst is and did ... the one reconciling man back to God (Son of God verse 16) and God back to man (Son of man verse 28).

This revelation to Peter came from the Father. It is this kind of revelation that unlocks heaven or better stated unlocks the reconciliation from heaven to earth and earth to heaven. It is the revelation of who and what Christ is that are the keys to unlock this reconciliation - Rom 5:11 - 2 Corinthians 5:18-19 —

Jesus is the rock mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18 — note Judges 6:26 that upon this rock the alter to the Lord is made symbolizing our chief corner stone Christ Jesus (Eph 2:20)and note 1 Sam 2:2 and 2 Sam 22:32, 47 ---

Read the context again…

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
Mat 16:14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Mat 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Mat 16:20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
note - Mat 16:28

It is upon this Rock of Christ the Church will be founded upon and the gates of hell cannot prevail against this — because God reveals this — when he speaks it comes to pass…

The keys of the kingdom of heaven unlock the reconciliation from heaven to earth and earth to heaven. It is the revelation of who and what Christ is that are the keys that unlock the power of this reconciliation…

Hope this helps…
-
-
-

[CeT-To]

Excllent B.W you are always helpful!!

God bless!

[TallMan]

He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? What does that mean? i dont understand ..anybody have an idea?

Correction, it says I will give, not I have given you the keys.

Peter was the first to turn the key to the door at Pentecost when he identified speaking in tongues as the ourpouring of God's Spirit and all can & should repent, be baptised and receive the same. Keys open doors, the understanding of how to enter into salvation is the key that Peter turned first at Pentecost.

Then they went to the gentiles with the same message and results (Acts 10:44-48) after which:
"they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." (14:27)

[CeT-To]

He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? What does that mean? i dont understand ..anybody have an idea?

Correction, it says I will give, not I have given you the keys.

Peter was the first to turn the key to the door at Pentecost when he identified speaking in tongues as the ourpouring of God's Spirit and all can & should repent, be baptised and receive the same. Keys open doors, the understanding of how to enter into salvation is the key that Peter turned first at Pentecost.

Then they went to the gentiles with the same message and results (Acts 10:44-48) after which:
"they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." (14:27)

Thanks TallMan for the correction ! Yep i finally understand ..yet now i have another question haha although its completely different to the topic question but here it goes!

Revelation 14:1 who are the 144 000 people with the LORD Jesus at Mt. Zion? Thanks guys !

[TallMan]

Revelation 14:1 who are the 144 000 people with the LORD Jesus at Mt. Zion? Thanks guys !

"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads."

According to the "historicist" reading of Revelation - that it mainly maps church (true and false) history from the time it was given through to Armageddon & beyond, these are descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel who have made their way accross Europe to the "appointed place" (2 Sam 7:10) - the British Isles (and coastlands of W. Europe)

[CeT-To]

Revelation 14:1 who are the 144 000 people with the LORD Jesus at Mt. Zion? Thanks guys !

"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads."

According to the "historicist" reading of Revelation - that it mainly maps church (true and false) history from the time it was given through to Armageddon & beyond, these are descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel who have made their way accross Europe to the "appointed place" (2 Sam 7:10) - the British Isles (and coastlands of W. Europe)

Europe? wait what? i dont understand.. sorry TallMan could you explain a bit more? what does the british isles have to do with mt. Zion? thanx

[TallMan]

...Europe? wait what? i dont understand.. sorry TallMan could you explain a bit more? what does the british isles have to do with mt. Zion? thanx

Remember the historicist interpretation, It's not the Heavenly New Jerusalem, that comes later, it is the place/people called by God's name into his (natural) blessings.
Isaiah 63:19: We are thine: thou never barest rule over them; they were not called by thy name.

Much of the detail of many prophecies, promises and parables concerning the tribes of Israel in these last days cannot be understood and remains silent mystery until you appreciate what became of them. The northern "house of Israel" (along with about 200,000 Judahites) were taken captive & deported by the Assyrians to an area near the Caucasus Mountains, the vast majority never returned to Palestine but became wanderers accross Europe (map). They emerged as the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people. The history of the "House of Judah" is more well known, they were taken captive to Babylon for 70 years and returned in the time of Ezra & Nehemiah.

Basic intro here.
More detail here.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Europe? wait what? i dont understand.. sorry TallMan could you explain a bit more? what does the british isles have to do with mt. Zion? thanx

Remember CeT-To, TallMan follows a heresy called British Israelism, also known as Anglo-Israelism. The British Isles have nothing to do with Zion.

FL

[TallMan]

Europe? wait what? i dont understand.. sorry TallMan could you explain a bit more? what does the british isles have to do with mt. Zion? thanx

Remember CeT-To, TallMan follows a heresy called British Israelism, also known as Anglo-Israelism. The British Isles have nothing to do with Zion.

FL

Ac:24:14: But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Ac:24:14: But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

A Jehovah's Witness would quote me the same passage.

British Israelism is heresy, period.

FL

[Telstra Robs]

I had a look into British Israelism a while back . There are a few things which negate it, including but not limited to:

1- Hebrew comes from a completely different language family (Afro-Asiatic) to that of the Celts and the Germans (Indo-European).

2- There is evidence of Celts in the British Isles long before the Assyrian conquest of Northern Israel (Stonehenge was built by Celts around 2500BC whereas the conquest was only at 721BC).

3- The Jews genetically are closely related to other ethnicities in the Middle East and their y chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans (http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel_2001b.pdf)

[TallMan]

I had a look into British Israelism a while back . There are a few things which negate it,

Did you find anything that affirms it?

1- Hebrew comes from a completely different language family (Afro-Asiatic) to that of the Celts and the Germans (Indo-European).

Read this and/or this.(I'm not saying I agree with everything they stand for on all matters).

2- There is evidence of Celts in the British Isles long before the Assyrian conquest of Northern Israel (Stonehenge was built by Celts around 2500BC whereas the conquest was only at 721BC).

Oh yes, trading took place long before, many believe "the isles of Tarshish" are the British Isles.
The tribe of Dan especially was a seafaring, that's why they are not listed among the tribes that wewre "sealed" as they made their way accross Europe.

3- The Jews genetically are closely related to other ethnicities in the Middle East and their y chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans (http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/Nebel_2001b.pdf)

That may just mean that what is being called "Jews" are related to those people rather than Europeasns, (many of whom aren't Israelite anyway).

[Telstra Robs]

Read this and/or this.(I'm not saying I agree with everything they stand for on all matters).

First and foremost, Celtic languages are not considered to be related to latin. The only similarity between them is that they are both Indo-European languages, but that would be like comparing German to Indian (both of which are also Indo-European).

Cited are a number of alleged similarities between Welsh and Hebrew. For example, how are Ydom and Adamah alike? What about damfu and nataph? There are many languages that have coincidental similarities in A FEW words. Furthermore, with the Celtic adoption of Christianity before the fifth century, it is possible that a few words were borrowed, either directly from the Hebrew Bible or from Latin words that were borrowed from Hebrew (as Israel was a part of the Roman empire whose main religion eventually became Christianity) and then adopted. The problem however is the fact that the grammar is not the same. Maltese is an Arabic dialect. One mightn't think so with all the Italian words used, but those were adopted. The grammar was retained from the Arabic occupation of Malta. If one could only use word comparison to find similarities between peoples, than Anglo-Saxons would have to be descended from Romans with our wealth of Latin words.

The second one states that the Phoenecians essentially founded Europe along Phoenecian trade routes, with Phoenecian trading colonies being European cities afterwards. However, wouldn't it then be more likely for the Greeks (who had many more trade routes over a wider area) to have been in this place? Furthermore, as I have said, there was evidence of people LIVING in Britain and Europe beforehand. The settlement of Skara Brae in Orkney (very top of Scotland) is evidence of this. A Neolithic age settlement that was used from 3180 BC when there were only supposed to be traders there (which would then be in the south).

Furthermore, if there was a language similarity, why would Archaic Irish have been written using the Ogham instead of the Hebrew alphabet?

Oh yes, trading took place long before, many believe "the isles of Tarshish" are the British Isles.
The tribe of Dan especially was a seafaring, that's why they are not listed among the tribes that wewre "sealed" as they made their way accross Europe.

Trading took place with the British Isles before people started to live in the British Isles? Who were the Phoenecians trading with? Israelis? Before the occupation by Assyria? It would stand to reason that the Celts were already living in the Isles long before the Assyrian occupation (especially with other historical evidence).

That may just mean that what is being called "Jews" are related to those people rather than Europeasns, (many of whom aren't Israelite anyway).

They have the old Israeli religion (Judaism). They write using the same script. They live in the same area. How can they not be Jews?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, there are very few Brythons now. Most of Britain is Anglo-Saxon with the throne being Norman. According to this source:http://www.bible.ca/pre-british-israeli ... allace.htm

...the throne of England is the throne of David, and the kings and queens of England Queen Victoria in 1800 and George VI in 1944— are of the royal lineage of David, and the British people, therefore, the real Israel today, which they claim descends not through Judah or the Jews but from the ten tribes. The true Israel, they claim, does not include Jews but are the Anglo Saxons. ...
...This restored Israel, the Anglo Saxon people, with Jesus Christ seated on the reestablished earthly throne of David as king, will rule the whole world. Anglo-Israelism teaches that the literal throne of David exists today in the throne of the English kings, and when Jesus Christ returns he will simply occupy the throne which the British kings now hold, and have been holding for centuries, for him until he comes, until the millennium commences.

If this is the case, how can one use supposed similarities with Celts and theories involving Celtic migration to prove that Jesus will come back to a Norman throne that rules over Anglo-Saxons?