Funny exchange between Jesus and Peter

last SG · 2006-07-22T14:37:10+00:00

lol. ok, i shall go sleep. i have legion tomorrow.

Icemoon SG

Matthew 16:

21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

1. Peter actually rebuked the Lord?!

2. Was Satan actually in Peter? Need to exaggerate until like that?

3. How come a mortal can be a stumbling block to Jesus?

Icemoon SG

It is very funny 'cos a few verses before Jesus was praising Peter in the famous episode - "Peter confession of Christ". Rolling Eyes

Icemoon SG

I take it to mean that any mortal, especially Peter and his "descendants", cannot be trusted even on matters of "faith and morals". Rolling Eyes

Ironside SG

1) yeah, Peter rebuked the Lord in his ignorance. Being an apostle does not mean that you are immuned to moral failures and mistakes. They can still fall into sin. But concerning DOCTRINE, whether in writing or teaching orally the doctrines of the faith, they are inerrant and infallible. Peter was not teaching doctrine here.

2) The word "Satan" in Greek means adversary.

There are those who believe that it is possible for a [true] Christian to be indwelt by THE personal Satan, the Devil, basing it on this verse.

But the Lord Jesus never meant that here. He never meant that Peter was indwelt by Satan here. In the Greek text [we cannot see it in our English translations], there is no definite article THE before the word "Satan" here.

I have to add something important. There is a Greek rule that says: "The presence of the article identifies, the absence of it qualifies."

The Lord did not identify the personal Satan [the Devil] as being in Peter. He was qualifying Peter's actions and behavior as ADVERSARIAL to God's will for Christ.

The Lord did not say that "THE SATAN" has indwelt Peter. He was just simply saying that Peter was an ADVERSARY concerning the will of God about the salvation of sinners. The Christ was to be crucified on the cross to pay humanities sins. If He didn't,there would have been no salvation.

Here's Young's literal translation of the original:

Mt 16:23 and he having turned, said to Peter, `Get thee behind me, adversary! thou art a stumbling-block to me, for thou dost not mind the things of God, but the things of men.'

3) "Stumbling block" in the sense that he was an impident to the Lord's sent purpose here on earth. He was trying to hinder the Lord in His work of salvation. But He never acceded to Peter's ignorance, He obeyed what the Father set for Him to do.

Peter in his ignorance tried to prevent [stumbling block] the Lord, but the Lord never stumbled and driven off His course, He went on to Calvary.

The Lord loved us too much, He had to die for you and me [AND PETER] that if we repent and trust in Him we will be saved. Very Happy

P.S. see you some time Icy, got to rest my eyes.....i'll see you two weeks from now. Bye

Icemoon SG

Originally posted by Ironside:
1) yeah, Peter rebuked the Lord in his ignorance. Being an apostle does not mean that you are immuned to [b]moral failures and mistakes. They can still fall into sin. But concerning DOCTRINE, whether in writing or teaching orally the doctrines of the faith, they are inerrant and infallible. Peter was not teaching doctrine here.[/b]

Look .. the Jerusalem Church almost changed the history of Christianity if not for the Apostle Paul.

Peter was teaching the wrong doctrine until Paul came along and God gave him the dream.

M©+square SG

Laughing Oopsie.

Interesting rebuttal.

Icemoon SG

to add force to my rebuttal, the apostles are not immune to doctrinal mistakes and failures.

laurence82 SG

But they wrote the gospels.....OMG.. Shocked

M©+square SG

Laughing

Which makes things even more difficult!!!!
Agree. Apostles continually grew throughout their ministry life.

Apostles are fallible. Holy Spirit isn't.

*MC crawls back into forest*
ZZZZzzzzzz...

Icemoon SG

Laughing

Icemoon SG

exactly.

If you were to meet the Prophet Jonah during his trip to Nineveh? .. he will preach the wrong message to you. Laughing

But if you were to read the Book of Jonah .. you get the right message.

M©+square SG

Laughing

Icemoon SG

I feel that the argument apostles (and popes) are not immune to moral failures and mistakes but immune to doctrinal mistakes is vague at best.

That's why I asked in anothe topic how does the Papal infalliability system (concerning doctrines) work?

M©+square SG

Me choose to stay in the forest.... Mr. Green

Icemoon SG

According to sgmacross,

In short, Papal Infallibility means that the Pope cannot teach something wrong when he is teaching about Faith and Morals ex cathedra. Ex catherdra means 'from the chair'. It's something like an official statement.

The implication is that once you become the Pope, you are not growing.

It becomes absurd because the moment you are crowned the Pope, your theology reaches 100% power.

Ironside SG

i do not know what you mean by the Jerusalem's church changing the history of Christianity..The Church during this period was not yet existent. The Church [composed of Genitles and Jews in one body] was birthed at pentecost. This [Matthew 16] is not Pentecost.

What doctrine did Peter taught that was wrong?

The problems in Acts is about the practice the Law........the first century Christians failed to realize [for quite sometime] that God was beginning a new program: the building of the Church of God.

In the Jerusalem Coucil [Peter, James and the other apostles] confirmed this. It was a faction in the Jerusalem Church called the Judaizers that was causing all the disturbance: mixing Law and Grace.

Peter's moral mistake in Galatians 2 was indeed crucial. He was not teaching in Galatia, he was manifesting Legalism. Peter's tendency to compromise showed up again.

But in all of Peter's teachings as seen in his two letters was the unmixed doctrine of pure grace. He was not practicing what he believed and taught in Galatians 2.

He believed in the doctrine of pure grace [Acts 15 and his letters in his two letters].

In studying the Bible there are mistakes of God's people that are written there. They are written not for us to follow but to avoid. In the Bible there are promises to claim. There are noble and godly actions written for us to emulate. There are commands to obey. But we are never taught to mimic David's mistakes, Abraham's lapse into temporary unbelief, Paul's temper when he had contention with Barnabas and etc.

Icemoon SG

The more I think the more I want to laugh.

sgMacross used the example of a pope declaring "1 + 1 = 3".

The example is unbiblical - literally.

Last time the popes interpreted the bible and came to conclusion the universe is a geocentric system.

It is laughable 'cos it is all about biblical interpretation but why interpret doctrinal verses they are correct but others they are wrong?

Ironside SG

When he went to Nineveh, he preached the exact message that God told him to preach. And even when he preached there he was anticipating Niniveh's disbobedience. But when Niniveh repented of his preaching, he was grumbling against God.

There was a great revival and here's the preacher grumbling because his message was effective.

If i weere to meet Jonah on the way to Niniveh, he would preached to me the same message of repentance. Read Jonah again.

Icemoon SG

Originally posted by Ironside:

i do not know what you mean by the Jerusalem's church changing the history of Christianity..The Church during this period was not yet existent. The Church [composed of Genitles and Jews in one body] was birthed at pentecost. This [Matthew 16] is not Pentecost.

What doctrine did Peter taught that was wrong?

The problems in Acts is about the practice the Law........the first century Christians failed to realize [for quite sometime] that God was beginning a new program: the building of the Church of God.

In the Jerusalem Coucil [Peter, James and the other apostles] confirmed this. It was a faction in the Jerusalem Church called the Judaizers that was causing all the disturbance: mixing Law and Grace.

Peter's [b]moral mistake in Galatians 2 was indeed crucial. He was not teaching in Galatia, he was manifesting Legalism. Peter's tendency to compromise showed up again.

But in all of Peter's teachings as seen in his two letters was the unmixed doctrine of pure grace. He was not practicing what he believed and taught.

He believed in the doctrine of pure grace [Acts 15 and his letters in his two letters].

In studying the Bible there are mistakes of God's people that are written there. They are written not for us to follow but to avoid. In the Bible there are promises to claim. There are noble and godly actions written for us to emulate. There are commands to obey.

[/b]

You said it yourself .. his teachings only valid in writings. This is already the work of the Holy Spirit liao.

I can imagine this:

Gentile: How do I become a Christian?
Peter: Circumcise first.
Gentile: WTF ..

Laughing

This is already an error in doctrine liao.

M©+square SG

Laughing

Can't help it....

*MC laffs in the forest....muffled....*