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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yeah, was a bit going on with Pilate I think, not sure
He washed his hands, something about that event for us all, just not sure what




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:26 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?


I would agree with you if that's what the Greek definition of Pikros meant that got translated as "bitterly", I can't just say that it means red when it means black. I cannot force myself to believe that it means the opposite of what it means, can you be forced to believe that never means always?

I'm sorry, when it says Peter "wept bitterly", it says in the Greek that he cried with poignant grief. You're demanding I accept that means joy. I mean, what else do you expect dude? Perhaps when you explained that to Christians hey didn't have a Greek Lexicon at their fingers, but when I hear something new I'm just like the Bereans were, but I go back and study to see if it be true.

I'll link the Greek word that gets translated as "bitterly" for you, I guess you assume I'm lying or something.

Pikros - Greek



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yeah, was a bit going on with Pilate I think, not sure
He washed his hands, something about that event for us all, just not sure what


The first century church says he and his wife became believers feet the events of the passion week. It's possible, we will just have to see someday. I hope he is, would be great to get his word of mouth retelling of those events.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wombocracy


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.


Dude, are you serious when you say this? Just because I pointed out that the word Pikros in the Greek means the opposite of what you're trying to say it means?? That's astounding man, I'm Satan by telling you a fact about Greek that you have wrong? Seriously? Are you that full of pride you can't even stop for a second and say to yourself "Oh wow, I didn't know this, this changes everything."? Luke and Matthew use the same word to describe Peter's weeping after he denied Christ. Peter was NOT overjoyed, he wasn't just little bit sad either, he was devastated in sorrow.

Pikros - "poignant grief"


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



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yeah, was a bit going on with Pilate I think, not sure
He washed his hands, something about that event for us all, just not sure what


The first century church says he and his wife became believers feet the events of the passion week. It's possible, we will just have to see someday. I hope he is, would be great to get his word of mouth retelling of those events.


Interesting how Jesus washed the disciples feet, taking responsibility for everyone and how Pilate only washed his own hands, hmmm
Jesus was totally the opposite to the ruling class, even Judas feet He washed

Someday



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What's the symbolism there, what are you hinting at comparing Jesus washing His disciple's feet, and Pilate symbolically washing his hands clean of the murder of Jesus. I do remember he did that in front of the mindless crowd the said Jesus' blood was on them and their children. Jesus even forgave the Romans and Jews for murdering Him, remember?

"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." Remarkable.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical
Jesus was taking responsibility for everyone, Pilate was only taking responsibility for himself
Jesus went to the cross, Pilate maybe to his lounge room, probably to ignore what was going on
I guess the message is a Christians responsibility to others, our actions are to be more than symbolic, not just prayers but doers
Pilate was concerned for himself, Jesus for everyone


Pilate was symbolically innocent and did nothing, Jesus was legally innocent and accepted the punishment
Juxtaposed against each other
Jesus washed our sin, Pilate washed away his responsibility to the innocent
Two opposed kingdoms

Pilate represents Mans kingdom, self, no cost. Jesus represents Gods kingdom is to the community at cost, big cost
Still forming my thoughts on this issue, been meaning to understand it for awhile



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Cool thoughts, I can see that esoteric level of interpretation.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I dunno how relevant this is to the topic, but it kinda struck me somewhat...

ܟܐܦܐ - Syriac for “rock”, “Peter”
כיפא - Aramaic of the above
כפא - “palm” (of the hand), “kappa”

So “Rock of the Church” and “Peter of the Church“ might be written the same.

Okay, that’s pretty straight forward but I changed the word a bit...

כפר - Aramaic for “deny”, “renounce”

“To palm” or “palm off” would normally be attributed trickery or deceit, or “sleight of hand”, but I could understand if it were used in respect of disregarding a truth. Likewise, to speak an untruth could be “to spoon” or “spoon feed” (or indeed “hand feed”) to the masses (like the MSM) and כף does indeed mean “spoon” as well as “hand”. Putting up the hand in an affront manner would be like saying “no”, that is to digress (denounce).

Peter “denounced” Jesus three times, so did he also “renounce” him? Was this the act of lying, thus “deceit”?

Funnily enough, and totally on a side-note, all of these words can relate to a game of poker. A “rock” is a “conservative player”, “palming” would be “cheating” (“bluffing” is also a form of “trickery”) and “renouncing” would be “folding”. I wonder if Peter and Jesus were playing poker?

Now I’m also wondering about “Paper, Scissor, Stone”. The “palm” is open for paper, a “rock” is a “stone” and the “scissor” is for cutting truth (deceit).

Yeah, this is all a bit wayward... but I often wonder how much the old writings have been mistranslated. Now that we have much more available to use for cross-referencing, including computers to crunch data, I wonder if it is high time to revalidate the original translations.

This does look quite relevant, though - en.wikipedia.org...

That actually leads to wonder about whether “Peter” and “John” are essentially the same name. “John” might be linked to “bin” (Arabic) and “ben” (Hebrew) which both mean “son” or “son of”.


And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ~ Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, that thou art [my son], and upon [you my son] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against [you].


edit on 1MondayMondayAmerica/Chicago12pmMonday1pm07 by IllegalName because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

You have to be the absolute worst person when it comes to understanding Biblical matters.

You have the most simple comprehension of everything and can't think outside the box for a minute.

Basically you are boring and almost always wrong.


Really Wombat, and I thought I was.
edit on 4-7-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Pikos" in Greek means "with poignant grief", that's the word that gets translated as "bitterly" in English.

So, "and Peter wept with poignant grief"...


Actually I think you’re right about the translation aspect. But I don’t think it proves or disproves either your point, or Wombocracy’s point…

If Peter was given a prophecy that he would betray Jesus, then yes, he could have wept with grief knowing now that Jesus was right about how he would betray him and would feel bad etc……

But on the flip side, if Peter was ordered to betray Jesus, perhaps he could have thought Jesus had a plan and that everything would turn out alright etc…Of course he does what Jesus asks, and finds that Jesus is taken away, most likely to his death, from Peters perspective. Isn’t that still going to make him cry with grief either way…?


- JC



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



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

I think "betrayed" is more along the lines of what Judas Iscariot did, Peter denied that he knew Jesus. Look, Peter loved Jesus very much, he was just sad with himself that he denied Him in His greatest hour. But the story is awesome too in the sense that Jesus immediately sought out Peter, and forgave him. That should be comforting to us all, we all let the Lord down from time to time, and based in this story we can rest assured that Jesus is right there ready to forgive us and restore the relationship.


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



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ok replace the word “betrayed” with “denied” in my above post if you prefer…but you still see my overall point…right…?

In that Peter could have wept whether he denied Jesus himself or was ordered by Jesus to do so…

The things is I don’t know what else Peter could have done in those circumstances, other than getting himself foolishly killed…

- JC



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



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

Maybe he would have been killed, I don't know. This is just a story that Peter said he would die for Jesus, and ultimately he would, but in this instance Peter denied him, even cursed out the last person and denied him. Jesus didn't "order" Peter to deny Him, why would Jesus do that. He had already said if people deny Him before man He would deny that person before His Father and the Angels. But it also shows the love and forgiveness of Christ, Peter's restoration was great.

This kinda also shows how great the baptism of the Holy Ghost was in Acts 2, here Peter was in fear, even of a girl who questioned him at the Sanhedrin, yet after the baptism of fire in Acts 2 he was BOLD and fearless, even to the face of the high priest in the temple, it's like a night and day difference with Peter once he was endued with the dunamis power of the Holy Ghost. After Acts 2 Peter is a firebrand.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
He had already said if people deny Him before man He would deny that person before His Father and the Angels.


But isn’t that more of a Christian spiritual aspect to not denying Jesus…?




Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus didn't "order" Peter to deny Him, why would Jesus do that.


To save Peters life…

Peter was appointed to be the Rock that Jesus would build his church upon. It would be pretty pointless having one of the key disciples getting killed, when Jesus had a bigger plan for him to preach the good news…seems like great foresight and godly wisdom to me…


- JC



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

But Jeus didn't tell Peter to deny Him, He just told Peter that he would do it. It's was foreknowledge, a "word of knowledge".



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Originally posted by whereislogic
But Jeus didn't tell Peter to deny Him, He just told Peter that he would do it. It's was foreknowledge, a "word of knowledge".


Yes, that is how it’s been recorded in the Gospels, but maybe that’s not accurate…

I think the OP was just trying to think outside the box rather than be rigidly tied to how the Gospels retells the story. Sometimes people retell a story but may not know or may even assume how things happened, and what the exact details were etc…

I think the last thing Jesus would have wanted would be for his friend to be killed at that stage of his life…at least that makes more sense to me personally…

Anyway, my first reply to you was just to point out that Peter crying proves neither point, in fact it leaves both points still potentially valid IMO…

Peace…


- JC



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



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

I'm not against thinking outside the box, but when you he tried to make Peter weeping bitterly as a joyous things I he to put the brakes on and say, no. That's not what the Greek say, and Greek is exponentially more rigid a language than English.

But hey, this is peripheral theology, whatever, if you want to think Jesus made Peter deny Him rather than just foretell the future, be my guest, I won't fight you on it.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm not against thinking outside the box, but when you he tried to make Peter weeping bitterly as a joyous things I he to put the brakes on and say, no. That's not what the Greek say, and Greek is exponentially more rigid a language than English.



Sorry, I didn’t see his post where he stated it was a “joyous thing”…that certainly wouldn’t fit my out of the box idea at all…

I don’t think Peter could be crying out of happiness in that situation…just doesn’t seem to fit to me…




Originally posted by NOTurTypical
But hey, this is peripheral theology, whatever, if you want to think Jesus made Peter deny Him rather than just foretell the future, be my guest, I won't fight you on it.


I don’t really know for sure, just trying to putt some ideas forward which might improve the OP’s overall idea…


- JC



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



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: NOTurTypical



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm not against thinking outside the box, but when you he tried to make Peter weeping bitterly as a joyous things I he to put the brakes on and say, no. That's not what the Greek say, and Greek is exponentially more rigid a language than English.



Sorry, I didn’t see his post where he stated it was a “joyous thing”…that certainly wouldn’t fit my out of the box idea at all…


That is because it doesn't exist. I wondered why no quote had been provided so I looked for one, the only thing I can say is whoever is saying that was said, is misunderstanding what was said.



I don’t think Peter could be crying out of happiness in that situation…just doesn’t seem to fit to me…


Well that is debatable. I could see that being the case because he knows his journey has been the truth. Why not be happy about that?

Why not cry tears of joy upon receiving confirmation of the validity of your prophet?



edit on 5-7-2016 by AutgnosticOmen because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join