Jesus tells Peter that in Luke 22: 32. One of the most awesome things He ever said!
Jesus used to pray to the Creator God whom he used to refer as Father God in terms of usage of OT ; but the Christians don't pray to the Creator God; they prayed to the Trinity to whom Jesus never prayed to.
The Christians should follow Jesus and refrain to pray to Trinity.
The book of John tells us that Jesus was God in the flesh. We also know that the Holy Ghost is God. Those 3 distinct manifestations are the Trinity and are worthy of worship, period.
The book was written by John ABOUT Jesus, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
How could Holy Ghost inspire incorrect things?
It was written by an author who got his information from the "Beloved Disciple" about Jesus.
No proof of authorship for any of the scriptures.
Not all Christians pray to a trinity. Over 20% are non-trinitarian.
Funny you should bring that one up. I just looked it up. Full well knowing that Peter would deny him three times; Jesus did not sit in judgment. He did not condemn him for the sins he was ready to commit. He prayed that after Peter's faith had failed him, he would have his faith renewed and go on to guide the other apostles.
It's funny how completely alien that whole concept is to evangelical Christianity. There's not an ounce of love or understanding to be found. I'm actually surprised that passage is still in the Bible the evangelicals use.
It is all about forgiveness. Jesus forgave him even before Peter denied him. Even hanging there on the cross, Jesus forgave them. He said Father, forgive them for they know not what they do. We all have to forgive one another, and pray for one another. None of us are perfect.
Well, it's a little more complicated than that. We all have to accept each other. Unconditionally. And those who pray can pray for their fellow man to find the strength and vision to rise above. Those who don't pray can hope for the same.
Jesus accepted Peter for what he was. First and foremost.
No. Jesus called Peter out on the carpet in other Scriptures.
And even the Scripture we're talking about was preceded by Jesus warning Peter that Satan desired to have him.
You're apparently confusing tolerance with salvation. It doesn't happen that way.
I guess that comes down to the fact that you consider satan to be an actual entity. I find that idea preposterous. Plus the fact, the figure of Jesus had previously stated he would build the church on the rock of Peter. There was no doubt which way things were headed by the time of this passage you have referenced.
Nope. Jesus accepted Peter, with all of his flaws.
If you believe Jesus was an actual entity, then you should believe Him when He spoke of Satan as an actual entity. So, why not make up your mind what you believe? But picking and choosing at your whim isn't gonna further your understanding nor this discussion.
And building the Church on the rock of Peter was simply Jesus's way of saying that Peter would eventually become a "rock", an illustration of the concept of repentance and forgiveness which mankind is prone to go through if they're determined to become true followers of Christ. Key concept is salvation, not Peter being some priest of the Catholic Church (which he was not!)
It is hardly possible to be more wrong - whether the story is real or a constructed myth it clearly is all about forgiveness and acceptance.
The extent of ignorance goes on with Peter being the Rock the church is to be built on - the church is the body of followers who would practice what their christ figure preached, forgiveness and tlerance. The statement is clear and unambiguous, only by reading more into the words can anyone make it other than Peter being the rock the church was to built upon. There was no catholic even invented at that time, so the text could not even NOT refer to that.
Peter is the rock, the church is the corpus of followers.
We can agree, at least, that the church Jesus was referring to is the body of Believers all over the world, not any specific man-made church building or denomination; and that Peter was called to be a leader of that initial group of Believers (which he turned out to be!)
So why do today's christians follow Paul who was rejected out of hand by Peter ? The line seems quite clear, the figure of christ (real or constructed in a story is not relevant) said - Peter is the rock on which the church (corpus of followers) will be built - and Peter denied Paul.
The last bastion of the 'original' church was destroyed by the Pauline church in around the year 600 - in Britain. The 'original' christians who followd Peter were responsible for converting the remaining druids in Britain and in Ireland to christianity and then their leader was excommunicated by the Pauline church.
Makes one wonder about that Paul and his 'unnoficial' book don't you think ?
I think Peter had more of a Jewish understanding of Christ's message, whereas Paul changed it in order to make it more attractive to the gentiles. The fact that Peter actually knew Christ, and Paul didn't might suggest that Peter had the better understanding. This might also explain why Paul would create the story of his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus as a means of giving him authority, by suggesting that Christ had chosen him to spread his message to the Roman world.
I've not delved in-depth into this. But from Peter's words in 2Peter 3: 15 and 16, the disagreement between the two men was settled, since Peter calls Paul his "beloved brother" and calls his writings "scripture". (Actually, it was Paul who rejected Peter, not the other way around; or rather, he rejected and rebuked Peter's doctrine at the time; I believe it was about Peter's legalism).
Thanks for bringing this up; I'm gonna try to study it more. And I see some others here have added some info about it. Oops...errr...opinion...
I think you will find that Paul challenged Peter's leadership and wa rejected by the apostles - Paul then went off to ( I don't remember where) a distant city and operated from there. I think you will also find that the reference to Peter accepting Paul is only in Pauls own writing.
Brenda is every word written considered literal by you? If so, you have so point. If not, you don't.
No one said it was assumed this meant Peter would become a priest. I don't buy into the belief that the organization of Christianity was envisioned by the Christ. Had it been, he would have built it himself. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes as to how far off course your belief structure is.
I'm gonna try to find time to study the Paul/Peter issue. I dunno if Peter had his vision before, or after, Paul rebuked him about the meat-eating issue...
Acts Chapter 11. There is minimal interaction mentioned in Acts between Paul and the Apostles at the time of Peters Vision. And since Paul states in his letters it was 3 years after his conversion before going to Jeruselem, I would be inclined to say Peter had his vision of the food prior to interaction with Paul.
The major meeting to address Gentiles and how they were expected to follow laws to be christians didn't happen until about 49CE. About 17 years after Pauls conversion.
Forgiveness is exactly the point; not just for those did the crucifying but for all humanity past present and future. So if His Father heard His prayer and announced 'yes and amen' then how is it that the evangelical church believes God will torment 98% of humanity for eternity when He already stated they were forgiven? The only way God can send someone to some mythical damnation is if He said no to Messiah, which nullifies His mission.
I don't agree with everything the "church" teaches so I can't answer that.
Salvation is a gift. A person will either accept it, or not. That's a choice we all make. 98% will be tormented? They must have been given a look in The Book of Life. I haven't seen that book so I don't know. Yes, forgiveness, love, compassion.
I found this to be a touching story on forgiveness.
That is a compelling story. Awesome! From the subject of the father, it sure shows God's grace! I think, though, that it may have been incomplete.....I mean, it doesn't tell the whole story of whether or not the young man who was drunk was repentant for his actions (even though it implies that he was). It doesn't give details as to what punishment the law gave him and whether initially he was rebellious or what...
I wonder about Judas. Why couldn't he find repentance? It seems that some believe they are saved without doing anything at all. No repentance, no sorrow for sins and no good works done in the name of Jesus.
There is a misconception concerning Peter as being the rock on which the Church was to be built. Peter is not the rock the church is built upon. Jesus asked Peter, Who do people say that I am?" and Peter answered Him. Then Jesus asked Peter, "Whom do you say that I am." Peter said, "You are the Son of the Living God." "Jesus said, "Blessed are you because flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but my Father in heaven revealed it to you." This is the rock the church is built upon. It is called revelation by the Spirit of God.
The scriptures I quoted are paraphrased and shortened to get to the point. You can look them up if you want Matthew 16:13-18.
How can you agree? Don't you know that atheists say we are not allowed to do that?
They also like to write, "Do as I say not as I do." for some reason.
by janesix4 years ago
Christians,doesnt that bother you?even a little?how many Ted Bundys do you think are "saved"?Do you care who your neighbors are going to be for all Eternity?
by denden mangubat2 years ago
Threatening folks is not an act of mercy, it is an act of hatred.
by Holly5 years ago
When we say we have an angel watching over us, what does that mean? What do you expect the angel does for you? I believe in angels-as many people do, and I have my own beliefs in who my angel is and what he is watching...
by Julianna4 years ago
In the Bible it is clear that Jesus was Jewish. You will find it written multiple times, however what religion was he leading the followers to? Catholicism believes that Jesus told Peter, " And I say unto thee,...
by David Stillwell4 years ago
It seems with all of the religious controversy surrounding homosexual marriage, the question comes up that if gays were allowed to marry, in the same sense that heterosexual couples do, should the gay people be allowed...
by rdhowell4 years ago
Some prominant theologians have asserted that St. Paul's theology appears to be universalistic in its overall thrust. One isolated passage can be used to illustrate the idea:Romans 5:18 â��Therefore just as...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.