Speaking in riddles is done to fool those you don't want to understand, FK!
You have Jesus condoning what He knew to be Peter's false belief
No one at that time, not even the Apostles, could fathom that they were standing in front of God in human form.
Yet, apparently according to you Jesus let this go and Peter had the totally wrong impression, VALIDATED by Jesus when He confirmed that this false teaching came directly from the Father.
Peter said the truth even if he didn't understand it.
You seem to have them in conflict since you say that the Gospels contradict each other. I say they do not contradict each other.
Then you need to read them all over. The synoptic Gospels are copies of each other. The Gospel of John is not in agreement with the synoptic Gospels.
Since you have John conflicting with the other Gospels I can only assume you mean that you look at the OT through the prism of the Gospels as seen through the prism of your Church.
It's the Christ and His message in the Gospels that count, not individual author's perceptions. Christ taught what it will take for us to do in order to go to heaven (Beatitudes), and how to pray and how to conduct ourselves vis-a-vis our friends and adversaries. Much of that is missing in the OT.
Without God, the essential teachings in the Bible are not really going to ring true.
There are many people who have good hearts and who are poor in spirit who are not Christians. God's laws (or morality and virtue) are universally known to mankind. They may not have the fullness of God's revelation (through Christ's Incarnation), but they still know that doing unto others what you wouldn't want done unto you is morally wrong.
YES, so why does your position appear to be that Jesus did not want His own disciples to understand His basic identity? What's worse is that you have Him compounding the riddle with a flat out lie, that the Father gave the wrong information to Peter, etc. A riddle is different from a lie. Saying that the Temple would be brought down and raised up again in three days is a riddle. Jesus didn't want them to get it at that moment. Saying that one is blessed because the Father TOLD him that Jesus is human-only is a lie. How does God remedy a lie He has told them?
No one at that time, not even the Apostles, could fathom that they were standing in front of God in human form.
How about "with God all things are possible"? Jesus was standing right in front of them. I agree that He didn't give them all understanding right away, but my beef is that I really disagree that Jesus actively sent them down a false path.
FK: "Yet, apparently according to you Jesus let this go and Peter had the totally wrong impression, VALIDATED by Jesus when He confirmed that this false teaching came directly from the Father."
The Gospel of John is not in agreement with the synoptic Gospels.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. :) If they are in conflict, then how can anyone or any group of men read the OT THROUGH "them"? That is how Apostolics tell me they treat the OT (specifically you and Mark), but all I see here is chaos. :)
It's the Christ and His message in the Gospels that count, not individual author's perceptions.
But according to you, the Gospels ARE (ONLY) the individual authors' perceptions. How can one discern the correct Christ? Oh, wait. Let me guess. :)
Christ taught what it will take for us to do in order to go to heaven (Beatitudes), and how to pray and how to conduct ourselves vis-a-vis our friends and adversaries. Much of that is missing in the OT.
Actually, I would say that the works-based salvation model, such as you describe, was MORE believed in the OT. With the fuller understanding of the New Covenant, many who think that Paul taught and wrote the Truth came to know that it is never a matter of what it will take in terms of deeds by us to get us into Heaven. Paul understood that there ARE NO DEEDS we can do to atone for our sins. There ARE NO DEEDS that earn us enough God points to merit a membership. Paul understood that Jesus did it ALL. (Somebody should write a song. :)
FK: "Without God, the essential teachings in the Bible are not really going to ring true."
There are many people who have good hearts and who are poor in spirit who are not Christians. God's laws (or morality and virtue) are universally known to mankind. They may not have the fullness of God's revelation (through Christ's Incarnation), but they still know that doing unto others what you wouldn't want done unto you is morally wrong.
Then what of those with "good hearts" but no faith? Are those without faith who do a reasonably good job doing what the Beatitudes say more likely to be saved than those who have faith but do comparatively less?