Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
You are wrong. Take a bible study course.
Protestant (non fundamentalist) or Catholic. Your choice.
They'll say the same thing.

You continuing to say that doesn't make it true. I already showed you what a Catholic priest said about it:

"But Jesus knew at that point that it wasn’t really Peter talking, but it was Satan speaking through him."
link

The extent you go to avoid admitting you're wrong is just absurd.

originally posted by: cooperton
You continuing to say that doesn't make it true. I already showed you what a Catholic priest said about it:

And I already told you ... you would be able to find a person here or there that disagree but Catholicism and Protestantism both agree that Peter was NOT possessed. Every Mass. Every Sunday Service. Every bible study. Every Catechism class. Every Sunday School. Every homily. Every Sermon. Every seminary class. Every Catholic TV show on this. Pretty much every googled protestant and catholic website. 2 billion Christians agree.

The extent you go to avoid admitting you're wrong is just absurd

Coming from you ... that's a riot!!!! LMFAO !!!

But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Jesus was using a METAPHOR to make a point. That is done in the bible a lot. He wasn't saying Peter was possessed by Satan. Peter was being influenced by Satan and was saying something that was a hinderance to Christ.

There is no way Jesus would have a conversation with Satan and tell Satan that he 'does not have in mind the things of God but the things of men.". To suggest otherwise is absurd and shows a severe lack of theological understanding of Christianity.

Again ... go take a bible study. Catholic or nonfundamentalist Protestant. You need it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
And I already told you ... you would be able to find a person here or there that disagree but Catholicism and Protestantism both agree that Peter was NOT possessed. Every Mass. Every Sunday Service. Every bible study. Every Catechism class. Every Sunday School. Every homily. Every Sermon. Every seminary class. Every Catholic TV show on this. Pretty much every googled protestant and catholic website. 2 billion Christians agree.

If this is true then it should be no problem to find a Catholic authority's declaration of such a thing. But from what I see, the only comments available online from a Catholic priest agree with me.

Here's a good perspective that explains the grammar in the Greek:

The Greek grammar is unambiguous that:

Jesus was speaking "to Peter" Πέτρῳ = noun dative
Jesus addresses "Satan" Σατανᾶ - noun vocative
That is, Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, O Satan." That is, it appears that Satan had inspired the words of Peter and was at that moment dominating his thoughts - Satan was using Peter as a mouthpiece for himself! [An eerie reflection of Gen 3:1-8 with the serpent??]

There are only three times that the vocative case is used for someone (always Jesus!) is speaking directly to Satan: Matt 4:10, 16:23, Mark 8:33. Thus, Matt 16:23 is significant.

link

The same verbiage used when Jesus is talking to Satan during his temptations is used here for when he talked to Satan speaking through Peter.

edit on 17-2-2024 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: FlyersFan
The devil never spoke through Peter. Peter was never possessed. That's some pretty bad theology you've got going there. Jesus said 'get thee behind me Satan' ... he was making a point that Peter was saying something against Christ's mission on Earth, and was not saying that Peter was possessed.

Got Questions

Is gotquestions.org your new catechism? Lol.

Satan was speaking through Peter, trying to get Jesus to not go through with the crucifixion. That's the most straight-forward interpretation of what was happening.

Are you trying to make the case that Jesus incorrectly identified Satan as being the influence of Peter's words?

When the Bible uses the term "Satan" it is not necessarily referring to the fallen spirit angel that made himself into Satan the Devil. Satan means Resister. When Jesus told Peter to "get behind me Satan" he was referring to Peter as a resistor to the will of God. Imagine, the entire theme of the Bible revolves around the central them of the coming offspring as foretold in Genesis 3:15. In order for scripture to be fulfilled and mankind to be redeemed from sin and death Jesus Christ had to die. If he didn't the entire human race would remain in condemnation to sin and death. We would be hopeless. Peter did not understand all of this. Jesus Christ did. So Peter was not thinking the thoughts of God in this matter, but those of narrow-minded man, who has a very limited view and understanding on things and God's outworking and purposes.

In other places when "Satan" is used it does not necessarily refer to the spirit angel either. For example when scripture says that Satan incited David to take a census that does not necessarily mean that the spirit angel did the inciting. It could have been a person inside David's counsel that was acting like a Satan, or resistor.

And some information from another site about translations
Christianity.Com - What Did Jesus Mean When HE Said to Peter 'Get Behind Me'

However, when Scripture uses the title “ha satan,” translators, mostly influenced by their particular theology, will translate it as a specific name, rendering it “Satan.” This ignores the fact that almost everywhere else it is used it does not refer to a specific person, it is not a name, but it is a title or designation used for anyone who seeks to obstruct the will of God, including humans.

It simply means “the adversary.” However, because we tend to translate Scripture through the lens of our theology, rather than allowing Scripture to form our theology, we develop well-meaning, but misguided ways of interpreting what we read in the Bible.

Taking into consideration what we have already discussed with regard to the use of the title “ha satan,” does it really make sense that Peter was possessed, or that he was under the influence of a demon? Not at all. Peter’s emotions had gotten the best of him. He wanted to defend His master against His enemies.

originally posted by: cooperton
Here's a good perspective that explains the grammar in the Greek

You continually fail to provide the ENTIRE QUOTE which decides the ENTIRE CONTEXT.

But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Jesus wouldn't have told Satan 'you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men'. That makes no sense. He was obviously talking to Peter.

Peter was full of human emotion not wanting his Master to suffer and die. He was either just being moved by human thoughts and feelings or was influenced by Satan trying to have him make Jesus stumble. Either way .. Peter wasn't possessed.

Catholics and Protestants agree.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: cooperton
Here's a good perspective that explains the grammar in the Greek

You continually fail to provide the ENTIRE QUOTE which decides the ENTIRE CONTEXT.

But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Jesus wouldn't have told Satan 'you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men'. That makes no sense. He was obviously talking to Peter.

Peter was full of human emotion not wanting his Master to suffer and die. He was either just being moved by human thoughts and feelings or was influenced by Satan trying to have him make Jesus stumble. Either way .. Peter wasn't possessed.

Catholics and Protestants agree.

Yes. It is good to find an accord. And an accurate one. No one, even intelligent and studied people, such as Cooperton understands or knows everything. We are all learning every day. I know every time I pick up the Bible and read it (which I try to do every day) I learn new and exciting things. Even after studying it for decades.

ETA:
We can all learn from each other.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
You continually fail to provide the ENTIRE QUOTE which decides the ENTIRE CONTEXT.

Well you keep telling me to find a Catholic source so here it is again:

"And he said to Satan, “You are an obstacle to me” (Matt.16:23). Jesus knew that Satan was trying to use Peter’s well-intentioned love for him to achieve an evil goal. The “obstacle” here wasn’t Peter; the obstacle was Satan."
link

Here he is saying that Jesus is continuing to address Satan with his following comment.

Jesus wouldn't have told Satan 'you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men'.

Why not? Satan is the adversary of God's will.

originally posted by: randomuser2034

Yes. It is good to find an accord. And an accurate one. No one, even intelligent and studied people, such as Cooperton understands or knows everything. We are all learning every day. I know every time I pick up the Bible and read it (which I try to do every day) I learn new and exciting things. Even after studying it for decades.

ETA:
We can all learn from each other.

Yeah exactly well said. Getting scathingly angry at someone else for a different interpretation of scripture is not the Truth.

originally posted by: randomuser2034

When the Bible uses the term "Satan" it is not necessarily referring to the fallen spirit angel that made himself into Satan the Devil. Satan means Resister. When Jesus told Peter to "get behind me Satan" he was referring to Peter as a resistor to the will of God.

Yeah that is a possibility, but the Greek grammar shows that Jesus is addressing Satan. It would be odd for him to be addressing a metaphor rather than the literal fallen angel speaking through Peter. This is why I tend to believe it was actually Satan speaking through Peter.

It's been like End of Days around here regionally.

And endless cycle of Creation and Destruction.

MINISTRY THE LAST SUCK END OF DAYS PART II.

originally posted by: cooperton
Well you keep telling me to find a Catholic source so here it is again:

Incorrect.
I have never told you to find a Catholic source.
Your reading comprehension sucks.

AGAIN ... THE FULL TEXT (which you refuse to acknowledge) - "But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

CLEARLY Jesus is speaking to Peter the entire time.
Jesus would not have said those things to Satan, but He WOULD to a human, Peter.

but the Greek grammar shows that Jesus is addressing Satan.

Incorrect. The grammar OF THE ENTIRE TEXT shows Jesus is talking to Peter.
You keep taking the first part as if it was the only thing said. And it's not.

It would be odd for him to be addressing a metaphor rather than the literal fallen angel speaking through Peter.

Incorrect. It would be odd for him to be addressing Satan saying to him that he 'does not have the mind of things of God, but the things of men'. Christ wouldn't say that to Satan. But He WOULD say it to a human, Peter.

You are wrong. Peter was not possessed.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Incorrect.
I have never told you to find a Catholic source.
Your reading comprehension sucks.

You just said on the prior page that I ought to find a Catholic Bible study.. yet the only Catholic source on the matter agreed with my interpretation.

AGAIN ... THE FULL TEXT (which you refuse to acknowledge)

I have addressed it multiple times, and especially on my prior post, which I will show again:

"And he said to Satan, “You are an obstacle to me” (Matt.16:23). Jesus knew that Satan was trying to use Peter’s well-intentioned love for him to achieve an evil goal. The “obstacle” here wasn’t Peter; the obstacle was Satan."
link

Here he is saying that Jesus is continuing to address Satan with his following comment. Peter is not the stumbling block, that wouldn't make sense. Peter is a disciple. The stumbling block is Satan, like the Catholic priest said.

CLEARLY Jesus is speaking to Peter the entire time.
Jesus would not have said those things to Satan, but He WOULD to a human, Peter.

Satan's mind is oriented towards humanly things, which is why the number of the beast is the "number of a man". Also notice his temptations to Jesus are all worldly humanly things.

Incorrect. The grammar OF THE ENTIRE TEXT shows Jesus is talking to Peter.

What grammar are you saying specifically? Because the grammar shows he is addressing Satan:

Jesus was speaking "to Peter" Πέτρῳ = noun dative
Jesus addresses "Satan" Σατανᾶ - noun vocative
That is, Jesus said to Peter, "Get behind me, O Satan." That is, it appears that Satan had inspired the words of Peter and was at that moment dominating his thoughts - Satan was using Peter as a mouthpiece for himself! [An eerie reflection of Gen 3:1-8 with the serpent??]

There are only three times that the vocative case is used for someone (always Jesus!) is speaking directly to Satan: Matt 4:10, 16:23, Mark 8:33. Thus, Matt 16:23 is significant.

You keep taking the first part as if it was the only thing said. And it's not.

You repeating this doesn't make it true. I have addressed it in prior posts, it is even on my last post.

You are wrong. Peter was not possessed.

Satan was speaking through Peter in that moment, the Greek grammar shows Jesus is addressing Satan.

You mean like Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is the Beast of Revelations?

Well, you'd be wrong.

Genocide Joe R.Biden is The Anti-Christ.

But we, WE are THE BEAST.

Pro-Libertate!
-OSR

originally posted by: cooperton
You just said on the prior page that I ought to find a Catholic Bible study.

No. What I said was that you should go to either a Catholic or non-fundamentalist Protestant Bible study ... and I did NOT tell you to 'go find a Catholic source' for this discussion.

I have addressed it multiple times,

No. You keep addressing just the first part. You fail to take the entire text in context.

AGAIN ... THE FULL TEXT - "But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

Here he is saying that Jesus is continuing to address Satan with his following comment. Peter is not the stumbling block, that wouldn't make sense. Peter is a disciple. The stumbling block is Satan ....

No. The whole point of Jesus rebuking Peter was to tell him that, because he was thinking like a human and not like God, that Peter was a stumbling block like Satan is ... Christ used a metaphor for teaching ... and that Peter had to change his way of thinking and think like God does, not like humans do. Jesus absolutely WOULD talk to Peter like that. Jesus was teaching him, and everyone who was listening. 2 billion Christians and 2,000 years of Christian theology agrees on this.

What grammar are you saying specifically? Because the grammar shows he is addressing Satan:

The grammar of the entire text taken in context shows that Jesus was rebuking Peter and calling him a name so that Jesus could get the point across. Jesus goes on to explain why He used that name with Peter. The grammar in THE WHOLE TEXT shows this.

Jesus was speaking "to Peter" Πέτρῳ = noun dative
Jesus addresses "Satan" Σατανᾶ - noun vocative

You take that from a random comment at a random site and you fail to understand that it's not accurate. The person you keep taking that from did NOT use the ENTIRE TEXT but only the first line. So it is not in context and not accurate. Nearly all 2 billion Christians agree and so does 2,000 years of Christian theology.

Satan was speaking through Peter in that moment, the Greek grammar shows Jesus is addressing Satan.

Wrong. 2 billion Christians agree. 2,000 years of Christian theology agrees. COMMON SENSE says that the entire statement, taken in context, shows that Jesus is addressing Peter ... rebuking Peter and then teaching him ... using a term that Peter can understand so that Peter pays attention and 'gets it' when Jesus tells him that his way of thinking is a stumbling block.

BASIC CHRISTIAN TEACHING.
Again - go to a Catholic or nonfundamentalist Protestant bible study.
You are seriously lacking even a basic understanding on how to read the bible.

A google of this topic brings up page after page of links to various Christian denominations all saying the same thing - Jesus was addressing Peter and that Peter was either speaking from a human feeling of being upset for his master/friend, or that Peter was speaking from human feeling and that he was being INFLUENCED by Satan, not possessed.

I am not going to address this further. You are wrong. And it has been explained to you for page after page but you are still clinging to a random post at a random internet site made by a person, who all of Christianity agrees, is wrong.

I have better things to do ... take a bible study ... I can't be bothered anymore.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You gotta learn to have a conversation without getting so emotional. Your opinion does not reflect "2 billion Christians".

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: FlyersFan

You gotta learn to have a conversation without getting so emotional.

Wow, you really are the typical Christian bigot aren't you??

originally posted by: Kurokage
Wow, you really are the typical Christian bigot aren't you??

He's disingenuous at best.

Stating facts isn't 'getting emotional'.
And stating the FACT that 2 billion Christians agree isn't just me 'stating my opinion'.
It's stating the opinion and theology and beliefs of 2 billion Christians.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
It's stating the opinion and theology and beliefs of 2 billion Christians.

This statement is just patently untrue. The Catholic priest disagrees with you. The grammar disagrees with you. You are free to believe whatever you want, but stop berating people for having a different opinion than you

originally posted by: Kurokage

Wow, you really are the typical Christian bigot aren't you??

She's lashing out insulting my intelligence and I'm the bigoted one?

a reply to: cooperton

She's lashing out insulting my intelligence and I'm the bigoted one?

You lash out and insult peoples intelligence in every thread. You target grammar or mis-spelt words to make you appear more intelligent.
I'm suprised you didn't also tell Flyersfan to get back in the kitchen?!?!?!

originally posted by: cooperton
The Catholic priest...

What a joke, you find one unorthodox catholic priest and you think you can refute what all the orthodox catholics believe based on this one priest's opinion.

It is surreal that you don't see what weaksauce your arguments usually are.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: FlyersFan
It's stating the opinion and theology and beliefs of 2 billion Christians.

This statement is just patently untrue. The Catholic priest disagrees with you. The grammar disagrees with you. You are free to believe whatever you want, but stop berating people for having a different opinion than you

originally posted by: Kurokage

Wow, you really are the typical Christian bigot aren't you??

She's lashing out insulting my intelligence and I'm the bigoted one?

It should be clear to you the intelligent design scenarios and creationism don't have a leg to stand on.