Peter at Jesus' trial

reply to post by coldkidc


You mean the Passover custom that has no basis outside of the bible? Yeah, that's another fishy thing about the whole scenario.

In what I would call more "modern" literature interpretation the severed ear seems to become a metaphor for Peter's own inability to obey and listen (or perhaps even to believe at that stage).

Let those who have ears listen, and it seems he did not.
He did not listen that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword (Matt 26:52).

So just like the ear, Peter was cut-off (thrice he betrayed Christ - he could not listen and understand).

However, then Peter (like the ear) became powerfully re-attached.
Essentially an ear for the voice of God (and His church, or for the Catholics, the first martyred Pope).

Perhaps in a Freudian sense one could say that Peter's super-ego told him to aim for the ear as a sign of his own inability to listen to God.
He struck out at another man in what he was himself repressing.

Not to say that the events cannot have happened, but there is a possible symbolic meaning that's a bit Shakespearean if one put it into a play about listening to God and the character of Peter.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

. . . in fact he was allowed into the courtyard to stand with those he had just attacked!

Well . . duh!
Jesus was there in the temple preaching and getting in the faces of the leaders of the priests, and they still needed someone to identify him in order to arrest him just hours later.
A Passover attracted hundreds of thousands of pilgrims for the festivities.
And they probably all wore a similar outfit appropriate for that festival, making everyone kind of look alike.
As soon as the disciples ran away, they probably blended in with hundreds of people right nearby.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Why would the high priest and his guards allow a man who just cut off one of their servants ears to come and sit with the guards? Why wasn't he arrested as soon as he cut the ear off? That's a very strange scenario in my opinion.

How would Christians explain this discrepancy?

If I were a Christian, I would explain it thus:

*** Begin proposed response ***

The key is in the verse you quoted later in your post, John 18:8,' "I told you that I am he," Jesus said. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go." '

The whole falling to the ground thing is reminiscent of one of the stories from the Elijah legends wherein the fire burned up two groups of fifty men sent by the king to fetch Elijah and bring him to the king, and then sparing the third whose captain asked that Elijah respect the lives of him and his men. (see 2 Kings chapter 1) Prudence would dictate that when dealing with an individual who can knock you down with words, that you don't go back on agreements you made with him, even if the agreement was to let other people go.

Not only that, but also there is the fact (as far as the story goes) that it was decided that if only Jesus were to be captured and killed, the whole nation would be spared. (see John chapter 11: 45-57) Remember that the high priest himself was the one who said, "It is better that one man die for the people, than that the whole nation perish." Therefor the plan and the orders were to arrest Jesus only, not his followers.

The Gospel of John story actually holds together quite nicely. A Christian may remember that Jesus told his followers "I have other sheep not of this fold. "(Jn 10:16) Could some of these sheep have been associated with the temple cult? Maybe a slave of the high priest? Maybe a man named Malchus?

*** End proposed response ***

Any way, that's what I would write if I were a Christian.

So my question is this: how can you hold onto the idea that the bible is the infallible, inerrant word of god if their are clear inconsistencies and contradictions just within this one portion of the story?

There are plenty of Christians who don't subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility of the Bible. I have no way of even beginning to defend any such notion.

reply to post by pthena


Perfect explanation! Thank you.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Interesting thread. What I am left wondering about above all else is why Peter who is a fisherman by profession was armed with a sword, which to me seems odd, although it' probably mentioned elsewhere that I've now forgotten about? Had it been a filleting knife or harpoon hook, it would seem more in keeping with his occupation.

As for waiting to be let in, would weapons have been a no-no when meeting with high priests and scribes in the temple?

reply to post by aboutface


Well, I have a theory about that. The group of soldiers that walked up to and arrested Jesus were all holding weapons, so that's one clue.

If you take a look at THIS thread, it might give a little more insight to what I mean.

These aren't inconsistancies. They're separate individual eyewitness accounts of the same event. One may have seen Peter get stopped, another may have seen Peter enter. But the fact remains: Peter was there, as were the other apostles, and all witnessed the same events from different perspectives.

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Interesting thread. What I am left wondering about above all else is why Peter who is a fisherman by profession was armed with a sword, which to me seems odd, although it' probably mentioned elsewhere that I've now forgotten about? Had it been a filleting knife or harpoon hook, it would seem more in keeping with his occupation.

As for waiting to be let in, would weapons have been a no-no when meeting with high priests and scribes in the temple?

Jesus told them to get swords when He sent them out in twos earlier.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So why did Jesus end up rebuking Peter for using it? And why did he go on to insinuate that his followers didn't fight to stop his arrest?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So why did Jesus end up rebuking Peter for using it? And why did he go on to insinuate that his followers didn't fight to stop his arrest?

If you read the 26th chapter of Matthew verses 52-54 it says...

52“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

If Jesus had not been arrested it would have prevented Him from dying on the cross which makes it possible for Christians to be saved. It was all part of God's plan to save sinners from going to hell. Why God chose this way to do it is anyone's guess. So God could have sent more than 10,000 angels to protect Him if wanted to but then if He did there would be no salvation for sinners. All you need to do is believe that Jesus paid the price for your sins when He died on the cross and you will be saved and live forever with God in heaven. Why so many people don't want this just boggles my mind.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So why did Jesus end up rebuking Peter for using it? And why did he go on to insinuate that his followers didn't fight to stop his arrest?

Because it was the Father's will for Him to be arrested and murdered on a Roman cross.

"Not my will, but your will be done."

reply to post by kijne

It was all part of God's plan to save sinners from going to hell. Why God chose this way to do it is anyone's guess.

If it's anyone's guess, let me offer mine. From Psalms 22 (Old Testament):

16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.

Seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

John 18
36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Didn't Peter fight for him? Why would he say this knowing that Peter fought for him?

Weird.

It wasn't yet time for Christ's kingdom. That was postponed for his work at Golgotha and set for a later date by Father. Christ's kingdom is not something that can be fought over with violence as "the world" and it's ways are evil. Half the jewish people wanted to force him to be king so that he would destroy Rome, the other half wanted him dead for heresy. Satan already offered him "the world" when he was in the desert for 40 days and he rejected him even then under great temptation.

Use a little bit of context and you can eliminate ridiculous questions.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You will note that Peter was later crucified.

You will note that some believe Jesus moved elsewhere where he had a child. (Islamic beliefs) I think thats the right religion I know it's one of the middle eastern ones.

Not all believe Jesus was crucified. So it must have been dun dun dun Peter!

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


My questions aren't nearly as ridiculous as your beliefs, but to each his own.