Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:58AM, jlb32168 wrote:

Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:38AM, tfvespasianus wrote:

I think from a literary standpoint, they could be seen as flawed men that gradually became something much more. This is certainly true in the traditional, albeit apocryphal deeds that were later attributed to them.

This point is not unlike the argument that Christ’s condemnation was for those who make a last, ultimate denial and never repent of their denial (e.g. Julian the Apostate).  KW, of course, would argue that Christ’s denial was w/o condition and that it introduces a discrepancy (Christ later forgives Peter; therefore, Christ lied the first time), but I think that the discrepancy is only the product of a slavishly literal, partisan, tendentious interpretation.

My mother and father routinely said, “I will kill you if you fill in the blank” and we never inferred that they literally meant what they said, that if they permitted us to live after breaking the knob on the stereo, we’d regard them as liars.

Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:58AM, Thomas A Quinas wrote:

Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Kwinters wrote:

It was worse than premediated. He was forewarned.  And within a few hours he did exactly what he said he would die before he would do.

So not only did he renounce Jesus, he lied to him ... 

I don't believe the circumstances support "lying".  For one thing, Peter didn't know the circumstances leading up to his tri-denial (i.e., that he would be asked/accused of being a disciple of Jesus the Nazarean).  No premeditation was involved, which would be an essential criteria to "lying" (i.e., deliberation instead of reactionary responses).  It would've been pointless at that stage for Peter to dissuade Jesus from his eminent betrayal, seeing as how Jesus already had the foresight to know that Peter would deny him.

The point is that Jesus is depicted as stating that those who would deny him, the son of man would deny.

But Peter denies Jesus and there is no reaction.  So either Jesus is not the son of man, or he was not telling the truth, or the author stuck in two bits of the Jesus tradition that contradict each other and just didn't realize it.

Apr 24, 2012 -- 6:35AM, Kwinters wrote:

The language is clear: Peter disowned/renounced/denied Jesus three times according to the story.

So, either Jesus was lying about their being a penalty, or he was not the son of man, or the person who was collecting the various Jesus stories and writing them down failed to notice the contradiction in the two pieces of tradition.

What we do not have is any sort of engagement with the fact that the story includes the tale of Peter denying his messiah.  And there is no further information about the fall out for his apostacy.

No, you're excluding another option already hit upon by TFV, that is, there is both clemency and spiritual growth at play in this part of the story when one reads it a certain way.

Your version takes the story as something more of a rule book rather than a narrative. It's a rule book; therefore, there's a foul.  That means that there's a penalty or something with no subjectivity.

If it's a narrative, at the very least it's meant to convey meaning in a certain complex way.

Your obvious bias/prejudice, most clearly evinced this time as a strident desire to paint Christ as a liar, informs your assertion and prevents you from acknolwedging other equally logical conclusions.  That belies any assertions that you wish to approach the question from a purely academic, objective point of view.

Apr 24, 2012 -- 9:48AM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:

This argument between those who try to understand Scripture and those who want to use it to beat down other people helps illustrate the larger divide between people of faith and people of hatred.

People of faith trust God, imperfectly to be sure, but the focus is on God rather than themselves. The haters try to tear down faith, to deny love and hope and to attack those who trust. Certainly there are people who are not fully in either camp, but there is a clear pull from both influences, and in the end everyone chooses one camp or the other.

Of course you’re correct, SSOD.

What I’m trying to do, however, is take the position contra mine own.  One can be a complete skeptic and take the position that the texts are no different than any other mythological literature, but what’s occurring here is that the texts aren’t being objectively considered.  Were that the case, then skeptics would concede that the opposing Christian argument (that Christ’s statement saying he would deny before the Father those who deny him) possibly wasn’t an absolute dictum. 

Instead, the skeptic would allow that Christ’s words might allow for repentance from apostatizing; furthermore, the skeptic would concede this is as logical as his/her own conclusion since hyperbole is a recognized literary device (deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect, e.g. “I could eat a million of these”).

That's not occurring here.

Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:49AM, SecondSonOfDavid wrote:

Apr 23, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Kwinters wrote:

It was worse than premediated. He was forewarned.  And within a few hours he did exactly what he said he would die before he would do.

So not only did he renounce Jesus, he lied to him.

Yeshua said to him, “Amen, I say to you that today, this night, before the rooster will crow two times, you will renounce me three times.”

But he was saying all the more, “If I am to be put to death with you, I shall not renounce you, my Lord!” And like him also, all of them spoke.

I think the charges in this post are unfounded.

Yes, Jesus warned that Peter would deny him, but it's untrue to claim that the denial was "worse than premeditated", because the text makes it clear that Peter had no prior intention of denying Christ but reacted in a panic - ergo, the act was not premeditated.

This also debunks the claim that Peter lied to Jesus, because lying requires deliberate deceit, which was clearly not the case here.  

The episode in the Gospel accounts is not there to indict the disciples, but to illustrate how little the disciples understood about what was to come.  Note that while Peter denied Christ, he at least tried to get close to what was happening; he might well have been thinking of how he could help Jesus escape.  The rest of the disciples plain just ran away.

The message was not to make the disciples look bad, but to show that sometimes even the best men lack the faith and courage to take a stand.  These were the men who were closest to Christ during his ministry, yet they all ran away and deserted Christ when he was arrested.  It's a story of pathos, not grounds to indict the men.

Perhaps the episode in the Gospel is not just to warn people about denying Jesus but denying the Christ-Spirit (Messiah/Spirit which is promised by God to appear [Gen 48:21; Gen 50:24-25; Deu 18:15-20; John 5:46-47; John 14:16-17; Acts 3:17-23 (a future prophet, not Jesus)]).

 Specifically, Jesus made claims that He would return like a thief in the night.  Yet many Christians expect Him to descend physically on clouds (which is not a thief-in-the-night kind of entrance). 

What if Peter is representing humanity in this episode?  What if Jesus is warning humanity that they will reject His return, the thief-in-the-night return?  What if humanity rejects God's Messenger not once, not twice but three times before the sun/light of a New Day reveals their mistake? 

Would people deny a thief-in-the-night return out of fear?  I think they would if they were afraid of not obeying the Word that they already had.  Yet, the Bible warns against such fear:

I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

        HB - Isaiah 66:4

And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

        NT -  Mark 11:18

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (separation)

        NT -  Revelation 21:7-8

Despite these warnings, most people are afraid of being deceived by false prophets so that they deny every prophet rather than putting those prophets to the test as advised by the Gospel:

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

NT -  1 John 4:1-3

Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

NT -  1 Thessalonians 5:20-21

Do not despise prophecies, test them.

NT -  1 Thessalonians 5:20-21

It is significant that the rejections take place in progressive instances and places instead of all at once and in a single place.   

That is, prophecies in the Bible are not always restricted to the time and place in which they are recorded.  If they were, they would not be prophecies.  So the question might be: is this a prophecy showing that humanity will reject the Messenger of God three different times before finally acknowledging God and God's Messenger?