It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peter's denial and its meaning

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Said religion was supposed to be non violent lol...

Thus... the guards which came to get Jesus were likely roman

the High priest was a pawn in the roman empire...



Dude, Pilate didn't even know who Jesus was when he was initially brought to him, and the Romans didn't answer to the Jewish high priest. The Praetorian guards were the guards of Pilate. They were his personal bodyguards, the high priest had his own guards, the temple guards.

It's an irrelevant point, but just realize the Romans didn't give a damn about Jesus until Pilate sent him to be beaten in the Praetorium the next day.


they didn't give a damn about him after his time either...

point being... the soldiers that came for Him were roman...


edit on 4-7-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Wombocracy

While I don't condemn I also don't have a problem with being abrasive if provoked by the ever present Fundamentalist, Literalist and arrogantly superior acting members of the Christian sect of the modern era.

I absolutely love it when members of a religion that preach humility act like complete fools and proudly flaunt it.

But I like understanding scripture more, and I am willing to look for the meaning of certain things that I feel are misunderstood. Peter's denial is a perfect example of a misunderstood passage i.m.o.



It's not misunderstood if you go by what Luke said. It's cut and dry, it's only misunderstood if you ignore what Luke said and shoehorn your own feelings into the text that are the exact opposite of what the writer said. Pikos in the Greek and has only 1 definition, a bitter or poignant sorrow.

You're ignoring that and trying to sell everyone the opposite, that's deceit. Well. It wasn't deceit the first time, you admitted you never looked at the original language. But one you were told what pikos means you didn't change your understanding of the narrative and doubled down on error. So believe whatever you want, you're free to do it, but something you cannot do is re-write 2000 year old Greek to justify your ideas.

Furthermore, you attack anyone personally who disagrees with you, nobody here has attacked you personally or mocked you. That's a telltale sign that your way too emotionally invested in what you're saying, that's your pride being dented. Not any of ours, I pray you come to your senses on this matter and come back with an attitude of scholarship and meeting us all here at the round table of ideas. It's not some fault on your part that you weren't aware of the Greek, it's not that big of a deal to lash out in anger over.



You would be doing yourself a favor if you realized that I see no point in communicating with you because you don't know much (sorry not sorry) and don't understand what you can say you know (recite info) but not explain the meaning of yourself, and need help. You don't listen to anyone either so you have no clue what you are talking about and this is why I am not dealing with you anymore.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Read verse 10 of John chapter 18, the guard who Peter struck was a "servant of the High Priest", they were temple guards.

Source

Bada Bing! You own me a coke, or maybe some tasty moose jerky.


No yer out... lol

The high priest bargained with the Roman procurator

It was against their laws to execute him...




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Read verse 10 of John chapter 18, the guard who Peter struck was a "servant of the High Priest", they were temple guards.

Source

Bada Bing! You own me a coke, or maybe some tasty moose jerky.


No yer out... lol

The high priest bargained with the Roman procurator

It was against their laws to execute him...



Yes, I know. That's why the Jews lost their minds when capital punishment was removed from them by the Romans, they thought Issac's prophecy about the scepter will not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes had been a failed prophecy. Shiloh is a title for the Messiah, and they knew when they lost the ability to enforce the Law with capital punishment that the scepter had departed without the Messiah coming.

Little did they know there was a 12 year old boy growing up in Nazareth of Galilee. But seriously now, what does the first paragraph say in the link I provided? I have no idea why you're digging your heels in so hard on this, Annas sent out the temple guards to arrest Jesus, and He was first taken to the Sahnedrin for His first trial. (Which was illegal in several regards)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Wombocracy

Then don't communicate with me, I myself will reply to your posts in the future though, I don't share the same ill-will to you. Good grief man.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical


I have no idea why you're digging your heels in so hard on this,


Yes you do...

Was not the high priest always beholden to the emperor?




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wombocracy

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Wombocracy

While I don't condemn I also don't have a problem with being abrasive if provoked by the ever present Fundamentalist, Literalist and arrogantly superior acting members of the Christian sect of the modern era.

I absolutely love it when members of a religion that preach humility act like complete fools and proudly flaunt it.

But I like understanding scripture more, and I am willing to look for the meaning of certain things that I feel are misunderstood. Peter's denial is a perfect example of a misunderstood passage i.m.o.



It's not misunderstood if you go by what Luke said. It's cut and dry, it's only misunderstood if you ignore what Luke said and shoehorn your own feelings into the text that are the exact opposite of what the writer said. Pikos in the Greek and has only 1 definition, a bitter or poignant sorrow.

You're ignoring that and trying to sell everyone the opposite, that's deceit. Well. It wasn't deceit the first time, you admitted you never looked at the original language. But one you were told what pikos means you didn't change your understanding of the narrative and doubled down on error. So believe whatever you want, you're free to do it, but something you cannot do is re-write 2000 year old Greek to justify your ideas.

Furthermore, you attack anyone personally who disagrees with you, nobody here has attacked you personally or mocked you. That's a telltale sign that your way too emotionally invested in what you're saying, that's your pride being dented. Not any of ours, I pray you come to your senses on this matter and come back with an attitude of scholarship and meeting us all here at the round table of ideas. It's not some fault on your part that you weren't aware of the Greek, it's not that big of a deal to lash out in anger over.



You would be doing yourself a favor if you realized that I see no point in communicating with you.


I don't think you really understand your own words gnosisfaith

If you see no point in communicating with people, don't reply to them
It's really that simple



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


I have no idea why you're digging your heels in so hard on this,


Yes you do...

Was not the high priest always beholden to the emperor?



Everyone was in the Roman Empire. It was an imperial dictatorship. But the text says that the guy Peter cut the ear off of was a servant of the High Priest, not Pilate. The Romans had nothing to do with Jesus until the nest day when Caiaphas had Jesus transported to Pilate. They wanted Pilate to execute Him because they could not do capital punishment themselves any longer, they had lost that privilege some 20 years prior. So the moment the Romans became involved was when Pilate became involved, which was that next morning.

Read the link, the temple guards arrested Jesus in the garden.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


I have no idea why you're digging your heels in so hard on this,


Yes you do...

Was not the high priest always beholden to the emperor?



Technically they were but
In reality they didn't unless they were forced to

That's not a big stretch



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

maybe you should read up on the romans in that era...




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Maybe you should read up on the Jews in every era

If there were no isssues in Israel why such a strong presence

Seriously, you believe the Priests did everything the Romans demanded of them



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman


Seriously, you believe the Priests did everything the Romans demanded of them


No.. but the Procurator of said city would have the final say...




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman


Seriously, you believe the Priests did everything the Romans demanded of them


No.. but the Procurator of said city would have the final say...



He did have the final say, that's why they took Jesus to Pilate instead of rushing Him out of the Temple and stoning Him to death.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Someone said that the Romans didn't give a damn about Jesus.

But the Romans didn't kill people for sedition if they didn't pose a threat to order, something they definitely cared about.

The Romans were definitely concerned with Jesus and killed him. They were also concerned about his movement and making it known that no rebellion will be tolerated.

Which was the primary concern for Rome in Judea and a constant threat. The War Scroll spells out what patriotic zealots wanted to do to Rome and Rome knew that an element in Judea was planning a rebellion.

And it happened between A.D. 68 and the final battle of Masada.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Wombocracy

Yeah, Rome started to care during the reign of Nero, I think Paul was beheaded in maybe 64-66 AD. I could be off by a few years, I can look it up. But for the first 30 years or so, the persecution of the Christians was done by the Jews.

And Jesus didn't pose any threat to Rome, Pilate declared 7 times He was innocent and he didn't find any fault with Him. Pilate was just sick of dealing with Caiphas and the Jews.


edit on 4-7-2016 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman


Seriously, you believe the Priests did everything the Romans demanded of them


No.. but the Procurator of said city would have the final say...



He did have the final say, that's why they took Jesus to Pilate instead of rushing Him out of the Temple and stoning Him to death.


We could argue the final say
If I recall someone washing their hands of the whole sorry mess and leaving the decision to the Jews
Irrespective, we all put Him there



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I have shared my sentiments on Peter's denial in Bible study with conservative Christians and in conversation in general.

They have always been supportive of this interpretation and even thankful that I could show them how it is a positive, alleviating confusion at the seeming contradiction in character of the Rock.

Some disagree completely but don't tell me I am wrong because they are decent enough to know that I could be right even though they disagree.

I have never been told that I was wrong because nobody who is honest can tell me that for sure.

Only here have I received such negative responses about defending the honor of a pillar and Apostle in Peter.


WTF is wrong with people?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wombocracy


I have shared my sentiments on Peter's denial in Bible study with conservative Christians and in conversation in general.

They have always been supportive of this interpretation and even thankful that I could show them how it is a positive, alleviating confusion at the seeming contradiction in character of the Rock.

Some disagree completely but don't tell me I am wrong because they are decent enough to know that I could be right even though they disagree.

I have never been told that I was wrong because nobody who is honest can tell me that for sure.

Only here have I received such negative responses about defending the honor of a pillar and Apostle in Peter.


WTF is wrong with people?


Please listen to yourself, you are demanding that you are right, trashing everyone who says you are wrong and saying how wonderful people who remain silent

How about you do what you demand others do, remain silent because you are decent enough to know you may not be right, simple isn't it



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
But then again these people were actually dedicated to following Jesus like few Churches I know of. My sister is a member and I have always respected them even though I don't have their beliefs. They don't believe in faith without works being why I like them.

But I am just flabbergasted at the number of miserable people who claim Christ but act like satans here.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman


Seriously, you believe the Priests did everything the Romans demanded of them


No.. but the Procurator of said city would have the final say...



He did have the final say, that's why they took Jesus to Pilate instead of rushing Him out of the Temple and stoning Him to death.


We could argue the final say
If I recall someone washing their hands of the whole sorry mess and leaving the decision to the Jews
Irrespective, we all put Him there


He did get the last laugh with what he put of the sign that was nailed above Jesus' head. In Hebrew if formed an acrostic that spelled YHWH, the Jews were furious and wanted Pilate to reword it, he basically told them to piss off he wasn't changing it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join