I'm still digging further on this issue, but thought that you could clarify something for me. Peter seems a bit confused in his sermon:
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
He clearly states that God performed miracles through Jesus and that Jesus was just a man.
Later on, of course he goes on to tell the people to ask forgiveness for their sins in the name of Jesus.
So it seems Peter can't make up his mind between Jesus being a man sent by God through whom God performed miracles, or God himself that who is able to forgive sins.
I believe that this latter response by Jesus was actually his response to Peter in the first quote above but the scribes placed it out of context to change the meaning.
on a seprate note.. did Jesus actually refer to peter as peter? doesn't sound like a very 'Jewish' name
cheers
On what basis do you believe that the scribes changed the placement of Jesus' answer to Peter?
format_quote Originally Posted by Argon Gossamer
A strange thing, this gift called logic & and reasonable sound judgment!
Where is the evidence of logic? I see only the statement: "I believe..." with no substantiation for that particular belief even attempted.
I'm still digging further on this issue, but thought that you could clarify something for me. Peter seems a bit confused in his sermon:
He clearly states that God performed miracles through Jesus and that Jesus was just a man.
Later on, of course he goes on to tell the people to ask forgiveness for their sins in the name of Jesus.
So it seems Peter can't make up his mind between Jesus being a man sent by God through whom God performed miracles, or God himself that who is able to forgive sins.
Can you clarify this matter?
I think that you are right that Peter had a little trouble knowing exactly how to refer to Jesus. He had multiple things to contend with:
1) his own personal experience that was convincing him of the divine nature of Jesus,
2) that this was a new experience and a just forming belief for which he had not prior existing language, note how much he borrowed from previous scripture,
3) that those to whom he was speaking would have no context whatsoever to apply Peter's new insights to their own minds.
As a result I think that Peter spoke of Jesus as a man to the crowd because that is how they would have perceived him, based on any prior information they would have had about him. What I see Peter doing then is set up a contrast between him as the man they executed because the Jewish leaders viewed him as a blasphemer and the anointed one sent by God, hence obviously the Jewish leaders were wrong. Add to that Peter's own testimony of what God did "through" Jesus and this substantiates that Jesus is truly God's instrument. Once Peter has made the case that Jesus is acting in God's purposes, then Peter goes the next step to call people to baptism not just in God's name but specifically in Jesus' name. That is the leap he asks people to make. We are told that 3000 do. We are not told how many walked away.
If you read the preaching of the early church, the fully developed Christology that we have in the Church today was not something that was present on day 1. I didn't mean to imply that in my earlier statements. I do believe that belief in Jesus as God come amongst us was present from the beginning, but exactly what that all meant I think took time for them to ponder upon. And in fact we are still pondering.
On what basis do you believe that the scribes changed the placement of Jesus' answer to Peter?
Where is the evidence of logic? I see only the statement: "I believe..." with no substantiation for that particular belief even attempted.
1-The 3 different answers that Peter gave to the identical question by Jesus in the 3 Gospels is enough of an indicator that it is not an actual response?
2- There is not a greater question in the whole NT than, “What is the nature of Jesus?” and yet the answer was not important enough for the 3 authors to agree on Peter’s response. If this is the “Good News” that Jesus is the Christ, or Savior, of God then why would Jesus “charged the disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ.” Rather if that was the “Good News” then wouldn’t Jesus command the disciples to go into the farthest stretches of the world and tell all men that he was “the Christ”, or Savior?
3- “get thee behind me Satan” immediately after Peter’s response, the “tell no man that he was the Christ” quote now makes perfect sense and you don’t have to make up a convoluted illogical reason
It is called deductive reasoning.. rather than legions of nonsense, the most obvious answer, is usually the correct one!
cheers
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks