Peter's denial and its meaning

a reply to: AutgnosticOmen

Because when it says in Luke and Mark that Peter "wept bitterly" the adjective for the word "bitterly" in the Greek means "poignant grief". When Peter met the gaze of Christ as the cock crowed the 3rd time, he wept with poignant grief, not joy.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: AutgnosticOmen

Because when it says in Luke and Mark that Peter "wept bitterly" the adjective for the word "bitterly" in the Greek means "poignant grief". When Peter met the gaze of Christ as the cock crowed the 3rd time, he wept with poignant grief, not joy.

That makes no difference at all.

The point is that I am saying that it is not unthinkable that Peter had mixed feelings.

One of them being joy, as I previously explained, at the knowledge that his Prophet was the Truth.

If you can't wrap your head around that I understand why you are confused.

a reply to: AutgnosticOmen

I'm not confused about anything, words mean something. You can't read a text and when the text says the truck was red you go around saying "well, it could have been red, but by golly it might have been green too, we can't tell for sure."

That ridiculous and ignorant approach to exegetical hermeneutics is how you get clowns in Kentucky dancing around with snakes in a worship service. That's how you get cults.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I am sorry you feel that way. I don't.

a reply to: AutgnosticOmen

Well then God bless you with your schizophrenic Peter who simultaneously is so filled with unspeakable joy that he can't contain a flood of tears and so bitterly filled with poignant grief that that's what both Luke and Mark recorded of the event.

a reply to: AutgnosticOmen

What is contemplative intellectualism about trying to make a text say the opposite of what it actually says? Especially when it says it in the Greek which is one of the most rigid languages in human history. For just a verb to be used in a sentence it needs to meet 5 different conditions. Intellectual contemplation is a very noble pursuit when the text is ambiguous, but when it's clear and concise the attempt to make it mean the opposite of what it says isn't intellectualism. This us literally how this thread/discussion is going down:

Person A: "Hey, I think Popeye hates spinach."
Person B: "No, he actually loves spinach, thats what the author wrote about him."
Person A: "Well, the author is wrong, he hates spinach."
Person B: "That's not true, in every written account Popeye loves spiniach. Love is the opposite of hate."
Person A: "You're a fool! I don't care what the author wrote about Popeye, I think he hates spinach."
Person B: "You have no basis to come to that conclusion, the author said he loves spinach."
Person A: "OMG. Clearly you can't think outside the box, it's obvious Popeye hates spinach. You're an idiot."