Peter's denial and its meaning

I also find it necessary to make it clear, "wept bitterly" is being used as evidence of some ridiculous notion that Peter was a coward for denying Jesus.

But that is a rather dull way of reading two words. Bitterness is understandable in Peter's situation. He could be bitter at his own lack of understanding Christ's reasons for instructing him to deny. Now that he understands he is probably a little mad at himself for being so lacking in comprehension.

Also they could be tears of joy, bitter joy might sound paradoxical but it is no more paradoxical than bittersweet or many many things even in the Bible.

But it doesn't hurt my premise that he "wept bitterly" at all. I actually can't see why people are so simp when it comes to reading the Bible. I don't have to go back to Greek and investigate what it would read as in Hebrew to know that weeping bitterly is a perfectly reasonable thing for Peter to do after receiving undeniable confirmation that his Prophet and friend is not gone.

Which is why he was weeping. I would be bitter by now if I had gone through what Peter had to go through and I don't think this is even a possible reason to dismiss his previous denial as the test of loyalty it was. One that Peter passed.

a reply to: Wombocracy

"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"...

Yet I am to blame for being surprised. A religion that is the widest path...that preaches the narrow path as the right path, should not result in one being shocked that its members are not aware of what "narrow path" means.

Yet I was. Even though I actually had this conversation earlier which led to the suggestion that most people in the church are just pretending and the narrow path is the few in the church who are "true" Christians.

Yeah right. The narrow path is not in a religion or creed or doctrine or book. It is a way of seeing things, while looking at the same thing, in a correct Way not seen by people on the wide paths. And living like it.

The wide path is what you have been taught by churches and their lingering misinterpretations of scripture. Fundamental Christianity is the WIDEST path of all paths.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ok dictionary Google guy. You are the best example of who and what I am talking about btw.

a reply to: Wombocracy

this theory seems reminiscent of the gospel of Judas...

Just sayin...

originally posted by: Wombocracy
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You usually don't see anything the right way, imo.

I follow Biblical Hemaneutics to understand the text, that means you follow what the writer meant when he penned the words. So therefore I reject eisegesis and use exegesis. In Luke where is says he wept bitterly the Greek word translated at bitterly is "Pikos", and that means "poignant grief".

He was sad to the point of being ill, and Jesus didn't order Peter to deny Him, He just had foreknowledge of the future. Jesus was not just a priest, not just a King, but also a prophet. So as I said, when Peter said he would die for Jesus He turned to him and said.. "you'll actually deny me three times tonight before the cock crows."

And Peter did. It's not a big deal, Peter was restored to discipleship when Christ resurrected from the dead 3 days later.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And Peter did. It's not a big deal, Peter was restored to discipleship when Christ resurrected from the dead 3 days later.

When was he denied discipleship?

And in every language, in the language of Truth and Wisdom especially, Peter is no coward.

He is every bit the Rock Christ said he was. He is a great example of someone who said to himself, hey I don't get what is going on but I am going to follow orders and do what Christ said.

Wisdom was his reward, no more simple fisherman now he is the Rock the Church is built on because he 'gets it' now.


And let's imagine that Peter DIDN'T deny Christ.

He would have made him a liar.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Wombocracy
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You usually don't see anything the right way, imo.

I follow Biblical Hemaneutics to understand the text, that means you follow what the writer meant when he penned the words. So therefore I reject eisegesis and use exegesis. In Luke where is says he wept bitterly the Greek word translated at bitterly is "Pikos", and that means "poignant grief".

He was sad to the point of being ill, and Jesus didn't order Peter to deny Him, He just had foreknowledge of the future. Jesus was not just a priest, not just a King, but also a prophet. So as I said, when Peter said he would die for Jesus He turned to him and said.. "you'll actually deny me three times tonight before the cock crows."

And Peter did. It's not a big deal, Peter was restored to discipleship when Christ resurrected from the dead 3 days later.

You follow error and nonsense.

a reply to: Wombocracy

He is every bit the Rock Christ said he was.

More like a stone actually...

one that could be rolled away easily... quite movable

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Wombocracy

this theory seems reminiscent of the gospel of Judas...

Just sayin...

It should. It is the same principle.

Alternative Judas scenario:


Judas doesn't betray Christ (all signs say he was going to back out). Then what?

I will tell you. God becomes a failure and his plan thwarted.

You can imagine the way that would turn out.

a reply to: Wombocracy

You're twisting scripture. Jesus said the gate was straight and narrow is THE WAY to the Father.

Jesus is the narrow way, meaning He is the only way there is to the Father.

"Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life.."


Which is what Jesus also confirms when He said

"I am the way , the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father except THROUGH me.."

He is the gate, He is the way.

a reply to: Wombocracy

no not really...

in the gospel of Judas you find Jesus actually telling Judas to sell him out...

Peter wasn't ever told to be unfaithful...

he was afraid of suffering the same fate as the man that we're speaking of

Who wouldn't honestly...

a reply to: Wombocracy

I follow error and nonsense? Well tell that to the stupid Greeks who decided Pikos means "poignant grief". They should have known better to make Pikos mean that, and that dummy Luke shouldn't have wrote that into his gospel account.

Because that's what he said, Peter wept with poignant GRIEF.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Wombocracy

no not really...

in the gospel of Judas you find Jesus actually telling Judas to sell him out...

Peter wasn't ever told to be unfaithful...

he was afraid of suffering the same fate as the man that we're speaking of

Who wouldn't honestly...

First, see my edited message above.

Then, well, I just disagree and feel you are not grasping that Jesus predicting the actions of his diciple is an order if you can get past simplicity of thought and speech as being good ways of interpreting scripture.

originally posted by: Wombocracy

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Yes and when the women at the empty grave were told to go and tell the apostles "and Peter" that He had rose from the dead . Peter must have needed that extra encouragement for them to be told to tell him specifically .

This might just be me, but I think Jesus said it that way because Peter wasn't restored to discipleship until he told Jesus he loved Him three times.

I would love to see proof of this. Do you have proof? Peter never lost rank, sorry.

It's the way Jesus worded it when He sent for Peter, "go get the disciples and Peter", if he was a disciple at that point in time Jesus would have just said "go get my disciples".

a reply to: Wombocracy

Judas doesn't betray Christ (all signs say he was going to back out). Then what?

I will tell you. God becomes a failure and his plan thwarted.

You can imagine the way that would turn out.

I actually like that theory in the gospel of Judas... puts a positive spin on Judas

He was the money keeper of the group apparently... makes you wonder why 32 silver would be enough to deny the Son of God...

But i will tell you...

God does not become a failure because of Man, or his silly prophecies...

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Wombocracy

You're twisting scripture.

You are not understanding.

Jesus said the gate was straight and narrow is THE WAY to the Father.

Jesus is the narrow way, meaning He is the only way there is to the Father.

"Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life.."


Which is what Jesus also confirms when He said

"I am the way , the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father except THROUGH me.."

He is the gate, He is the way.

Great sound bite. Too bad this isn't a press conference and you remain of the wide path.

originally posted by: Wombocracy

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Wombocracy

Peter wasn't full of joy, he wept bitterly. He was devastated, weeping, which is remorse to the point of being ill.

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.

No, I use exegesis. That means trying to figure out precisely what the writer was saying when he penned the words. You use eisegesis, meaning you try and shoehorn your preconceived opinion into the text.

The first fundamental principles of Biblical hermeneutics is exegesis. Eisegesis is how you get cults.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Wombocracy

Judas doesn't betray Christ (all signs say he was going to back out). Then what?

I will tell you. God becomes a failure and his plan thwarted.

You can imagine the way that would turn out.

I actually like that theory in the gospel of Judas... puts a positive spin on Judas

He was the money keeper of the group apparently... makes you wonder why 32 silver would be enough to deny the Son of God...

But i will tell you...

God does not become a failure because of Man, or his silly prophecies...

That last sentence is true, but operating inside the world of the NT requires throwing out that fact temporarily.