al-Taqiyya

[Leo Volont]

I wonder if all that covers "The Check is in the Mail".

 

[Tiassa]

The check is in your mouth. I won't come in the mail.

 

[Leo Volont]

The check is in your mouth. I won't come in the mail.

That was colorful. Tell me, have you been a low life very long?

 

[Tiassa]

I've loved that punchline ever since I stole it from a Hustler trivia quiz I snagged from my Dad when I was 10. It was, I believe, answer D to a multiple-choice question on the most popular lie.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Randolfo
Depends on the Jew. Depends on the Christian.

I feel as if I let the Nazi bit slide. But ... come on, man--between that and Columbine you're getting a little exploitative:

• Do you really think that a Jew standing before a Nazi in 1938, Berlin, had a chance in hell of passing himself off otherwise? Not many, not many.

heck, if Adolf could pass as an aryan, why not? sprechen zi dark hair und brun iii's?

anyway, I think that now you're doing a little racial profiling; after 2 thousand years (& both forced & consensual intermingling), many jews could pass for aryan, if they wanted to, all they had to do is change their name & move to another city( & maybe a little peroxide for effect )
because of the intense racial hatred against Mexicans in the US, many changed their names, or did other things to lessen the effect of that racism; I have aunts & cousins that to this day, swear they are French-Spanish (I guess that makes them Navarese, Catalon or Basque?), they mis-spell & mis-pronounce their own last name. Heck, they could pass for Germans, if they had gotten their stories straight

• I hadn't heard about the Columbine shooters stopping to poll people's religion before deciding whether or not to execute them.

read this, or google "columbine shooters"
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Columbine High School Shooting

Ignatius of Antioch prayed for his combat with the lions. In the end, his identity politic motivated his martyrdom--an essential suicide (cf Ignatius, Romans, 4[/url]). Given a chance to simply "go through the motions" of a pagan service in order to save his life, would he? Absolutely not.

And so there exists, within an interpretation falling somewhere between the henotheistic and the kathenotheistic that, while not necessarily traditional, runs squarely through the practical.


In the early days of Christianity, and again in the modern era under tyrannical regimes, Christians have concealed themselves and sought to deceive in order to protect their faith in God. Should God condemn them for not openly choosing a route that can lead to death? Up until the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union, Christians in the US hailed as heroes smugglers who ran Bibles behind the Iron Curtain. The same with East Germany.

That is, Christians lied in order to protect and spread the faith.

Jesus said, "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, give unto God what is God's", that we would be persecuted for our faith, that even some 'would think it a religious duty to kill us', Jesus & Paul went publicly preaching, not sure how to react to tyranical communism, having only known US version (Line of March & the CP-Marxist-Leninist)

Or, we could go to the source:

Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean." But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean." And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man." After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you." Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly. (Matthew 26.69-75, RSV)

And this from Peter, the Rock upon which so much stands.

You know whats an interesting thing, Tiassa? the fact that up until Jesus' Resurrection, all His followers didn't get it, that Jesus did miracles seems to be so blase to them after the fact, seems what He told them didn't stick, they seemed to think & act in human terms, including cowardness for Peter. all the disciples scattered, but then a funny thing happens, all these cowards start standing up to authorities after Pentacost, including the Sanhedrin, Roman officials, etc... this Peter is whipped by the Sanhedrin for not renouncing Jesus, crucified upside down by the Romans for same,

now what changes a bunch of cowards, who are terrified that this person, who they thought was the Messiah, who had told them He would be crucified, had in fact been crucified, what made them suddenedly brave enough to oppse an Empire? I would state that it was Christ Crucified, Christ Resurrected, Christ Ascended, that sparked that change, what say you?

Let's look at what you quoted from my post:

" I will point out that Jews, in essence, are allowed to lie as well. It's in the First Commandment. This isn't to point out that, "Since the Jews do it ...." No, rather, it's the argument underlying the idea that the First Commandment allows Jews to lie."

I added some boldfaced and italic accents this time. Because I also wrote, as part of the same paragraph:

so now, are you forcing everybody to be a Greek or Aramaic scholar? if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be able to speak to anyone, in any language, those that try to overanalyze it, 'fall to see the forest for the trees', I think that said scholar wants to see this, & so has 'experimenters effect' on his own research

Since you find the notion so disdainful, perhaps you might fill me in as to why?

first of all, I am not Peter, Paul, or Tiassa, or Sammy next door, I can & will only answer for myself. for me to deny Christ, even to save my life, is to lose salvation, because I myself would have denied that Christ died for me, & if He was willing to die for me, am I not brave enough to die for Him? to stand up, for what I believe is "Truth", "Goodness", "Justice", "Agape" and the only way to know & be with God? also, I'm not saying that I'll 'go gently into the night"; in my 49 years, I don't believe in giving up that easy to some no goodnic, just because he feels like it, or the gov

as a youngster, I had tasted catholism, judaism, atheism, agnosticism, empiricism & I weighted them & found them wanting
as a 30 year old seeker, I studied JW & Christianity, I chose Christianity
& immediately afterwards; apostolic, LDS, Islam, the Church Universal & Triumphant tried to convert me, so I studied them, weighted them & found them wanting

tiassa's sources listed as:
___________________
• Ignatius of Antioch. "Epistle to the Romans." See http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm
• The Bible, Revised Standard Version - see http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

 

[WildBlueYonder]

I say:

I'm sure millions of Jews would be relieved to know that they could now, just tell evrybody theuy are christian, atheists in the West; muslims, buddhists, hindus in the East, what a relief, no more holocausts, shucks, I wish that that version would have been available to the 6 million Jews prior to 1939, it would have saved them any trouble with the Germans

you say:

Oh, come on, Randolfo. You can do better than that.

I say:

if lying was permitted (or ordained) to jews, why didn't they? why didn't they save their lives, they knew they were in trouble since '39 "und Kristallnacht"? could you answer this logical conundrum?

from:
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/nazis.htm

Jews were targeted on November 9, 1938 in what came to be known as Krystallnacht – the night of broken glass. After the murder of a German diplomat in Paris by an expatriate German Jew, the SS and SA followed precise orders and burned 200 synagogues and 7.500 Jewish business and warehouses. 200 Jews were killed. The Nazis paid insurance claims, and then confiscated the money. Soon the German Jews would be deported to the camps.

you say:

If you are told at the stake of your life to pay homage to ... oh ... say ... Cthulhu, would you? Would you perform the rite and say the prayers and prostrate yourself before the Waiting Dreamer? Every day of your life?

ahhhhhh,



NO!!! of course not, satan will have to find another weaklink

 

[Tiassa]

Randolfo

anyway, I think that now you're doing a little racial profiling

Actually, I'm banking on the notion that when the Nazi's erred, they did not err to the side of human compassion nearly as often as otherwise.

many jews could pass for aryan, if they wanted to, all they had to do is change their name & move to another city

And none of them ever lied about their faith? That seems to be what you're arguing:

I'm sure millions of Jews would be relieved to know that they could now, just tell evrybody theuy are christian

What is so objectionable that the Jews or Christians (or Muslims or anyone else) should not do what Peter did?

read this, or google "columbine shooters"
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictiona...hool Shooting

What the hell are you going on about Columbine for?

Jesus said, "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, give unto God what is God's", that we would be persecuted for our faith, that even some 'would think it a religious duty to kill us', Jesus & Paul went publicly preaching, not sure how to react to tyranical communism, having only known US version (Line of March & the CP-Marxist-Leninist)

Interesting response.

You know whats an interesting thing, Tiassa? the fact that up until Jesus' Resurrection, all His followers didn't get it, that Jesus did miracles seems to be so blase to them after the fact, seems what He told them didn't stick, they seemed to think & act in human terms, including cowardness for Peter. all the disciples scattered, but then a funny thing happens, all these cowards start standing up to authorities after Pentacost, including the Sanhedrin, Roman officials, etc... this Peter is whipped by the Sanhedrin for not renouncing Jesus, crucified upside down by the Romans for same,

now what changes a bunch of cowards, who are terrified that this person, who they thought was the Messiah, who had told them He would be crucified, had in fact been crucified, what made them suddenedly brave enough to oppse an Empire? I would state that it was Christ Crucified, Christ Resurrected, Christ Ascended, that sparked that change, what say you?

You make my point for me. Show anyone who has lied in order to protect their faith the realization of their faith, and perhaps they would be less inclined to lie about it as it would not longer be faith but fact in their minds.

so now, are you forcing everybody to be a Greek or Aramaic scholar? if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be able to speak to anyone, in any language

What the hell are you going on about?

so now, are you forcing everybody to be a Greek or Aramaic scholar? if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be able to speak to anyone, in any language, those that try to overanalyze it, 'fall to see the forest for the trees', I think that said scholar wants to see this, & so has 'experimenters effect' on his own research

The only thing I can get out of that worth responding to is what's this about Greek or Aramaic?

Look, Randolfo, you quoted part of a post and responded to that part, yet the remainder of the paragraph that you didn't quote actually addresses part of what you're talking about. Since you found that part of the discussion disdainful--

first of all, I am not Peter, Paul, or Tiassa, or Sammy next door, I can & will only answer for myself. for me to deny Christ, even to save my life, is to lose salvation, because I myself would have denied that Christ died for me, & if He was willing to die for me, am I not brave enough to die for Him? to stand up, for what I believe is "Truth", "Goodness", "Justice", "Agape" and the only way to know & be with God? also, I'm not saying that I'll 'go gently into the night"; in my 49 years, I don't believe in giving up that easy to some no goodnic, just because he feels like it, or the gov

as a youngster, I had tasted catholism, judaism, atheism, agnosticism, empiricism & I weighted them & found them wanting
as a 30 year old seeker, I studied JW & Christianity, I chose Christianity
& immediately afterwards; apostolic, LDS, Islam, the Church Universal & Triumphant tried to convert me, so I studied them, weighted them & found them wanting

--the trials of your life story don't seem like much of a reason why you seem to be ignoring that aspect of the discussion.

tiassa's sources listed as:

So in the future would you like me to spare you the courtesy of allowing people the opportunity to read the quotes or examine the assertions I make of any given text in its proper context?

I mean ... what, exactly, is the point of noting my sources?

It can't possibly be some sense of comparison against your sob story. I mean ... really ... what's up? Maybe include some comment next time?

NO!!! of course not, satan will have to find another weaklink

You have children? Anyone ... er ... um ... "anyone else to live for"? Or do you hold yourself the most important thing in your life?

Would you evangelize where the Word of God is against the law? Or would you render unto caesar?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Look, Randolfo, you quoted part of a post and responded to that part, yet the remainder of the paragraph that you didn't quote actually addresses part of what you're talking about. Since you found that part of the discussion disdainful--

I don't believe it, like I said, his implications would force everyone that is a christian to learn Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, to refute them, & at this stage of my life, I have no intension of doing so, I'll let other Bible scholars do that. interesting idea, but why didn't jews who know hebrew, know that? why did it take 2000 years to get that so-called fact?

 

[Tiassa]

The wrong question?

but why didn't jews who know hebrew, know that?

That may be the wrong question. It's a point of faith. It would be more correct to ask, Why didn't the Jews believe it?

It may also be that we simply don't hear of them in history. Many of them may well have become "lost" in the sense that the prophets rejected many who attempted to become comfortable in exile, and many of those who did would eventually integrate and lose the faith.

The trick comes in realizing that amid the many trials of Jewish history, some Jew somewhere had to lie about his faith at some point, else there would be no Jews left. And we might then wonder if God has a problem with that?

The difference, as we see in Peter's well-known lie, is one of faith and knowledge.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

That may be the wrong question. It's a point of faith. It would be more correct to ask, Why didn't the Jews believe it?

my educated, logical guess would be, because it wasn't there, otherwise Jews would have had an "easy out" everytime there was trouble, & if you look at their history, there was trouble enough, in spades. if it had been there, like the 'al-taqiyya' of the muslims, why there would be Jewish literature & tales of the goy that was outwitted, outbested, hoodwinked, bambozelled, by the cunning jew. now doesn't that sound anti-semite already?

It may also be that we simply don't hear of them in history. Many of them may well have become "lost" in the sense that the prophets rejected many who attempted to become comfortable in exile, and many of those who did would eventually integrate and lose the faith.

huh, could be, but then again, look at the prophets, they railed against those that "bent", but praised those that "did not bend the knee". Samarians may have fallen into that, since they had attempted to break away from Jerusalem's political & religious control
BTW, exile may have had the opposite effect, when they were forced out of Israel, they got the feeling of the 'otherness' of the people around them & their own unique history & culture & 'usdom"

The trick comes in realizing that amid the many trials of Jewish history, some Jew somewhere had to lie about his faith at some point, else there would be no Jews left. And we might then wonder if God has a problem with that?

the trick is, how many? a few or many or all? I'm sure a few did, but like I said, if they had that 'easy out' & didn't use, it must not have been there?

The difference, as we see in Peter's well-known lie, is one of faith and knowledge.

voila, I think you got the diff.
& there is a diff, see what happened to Peter after the Resurrection, you think he was a coward afterwards? did he back down, did he lie, hide, or stammmer? or "did he boldly go where...."?

 

[Tiassa]

& there is a diff, see what happened to Peter after the Resurrection, you think he was a coward afterwards? did he back down, did he lie, hide, or stammmer? or "did he boldly go where...."?

The difference between faith and knowledge.

I don't see why you have such a hard time grasping what that means.

So Peter, as a man of faith, does a very human thing and superficially rejects Christ in an effort to preserve his own ass. And then Peter, as a man of knowledge, draws a line and stands it.

Tell me, Randolfo--have you faith or knowledge? And what of the next guy?

I don't see what the issue of Peter as a man of knowledge has to do with anything unless we're prepared to assert that religious faith is, in fact, widespread and common knowledge.

And it's not.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

back on subject of thread, found this
from:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/rf5_ali_muawiya.htm

The daily battles continued and Ali’s men usually had the upper hand. Ali’s men continued to gain strength and press their advantage. The situation was becoming critical for Mu'awiyah. Mu'awiyah’s General, Amr, realized that the tide had turned against him and presented Mu'awiyah with a new strategy......

When Amr b. al-As saw that the position of the Iraqis had strengthened and was afraid that it would lead to destruction, he said to Mu'awiyah, “What if I put something to you that can only increase our unity and their division?” “All right,” said Mu'awiyah. Amr said, “We will raise the masahif (pages of the Quran) and say, “their contents are to be authoritative in our dispute.” Even if some of them refuse to accept it, you will find some of them will say, “Indeed, yes, we must accept,” and there will be a division between them. If, on the other hand, they say, “Yes, indeed, we accept what is in it,” then we will have disburdened ourselves of this fighting and this warfare until an appointed time or a later occasion.” So they raised the masahif on lances and said: “This is the Book of God between us and you. Who will protect the frontiers districts of the Syrians if they all perish, and who those of the Iraqis if they all perish?” When (Ali’s) men saw tat the masahif had been raised, they said, “We respond to the Book of God, and we turn in repentance to it.” (page 78).


Amr’s ruse worked! Ali’s men became divided, and demanded that Ali negotiate. This displeased Ali....

Ali said, “Servants of God, carry on fighting your enemies, for you have truth and right on your side. Mu'awiyah, Amr, Abi Muayt, Habib Maslamah, Ibn Abi Sarh (the man who made up verses of the Quran with Muhammad’s permission), and al-Dahhak are men without religion and with Quran. I know them better than you, for I was with them both as children and as men, and they were the worst of children and the worst of men. They have not exalted them (the masahif) and they do not exalt them and do not know that it is that they contain. They have raised them up to you only to deceive you, to outwit you, and to trick you. They answered him, “If we are called to the Book of God, we are bound to respond.” Ali said to them, “The only reason I have fought against them was so that they should adhere to the authority of this Book, for they have disobeyed God in what He has commanded and they have forgotten His covenant and rejected His Book.” (page 79).

The dialog ended with Ali’s men insisting that he negotiate or they would turn against him and give him over to Mu'awiyah. Ali told them to remember this mistake because it was a terrible one, one that they would soon regret. Even al-Ashtar’s (Ali’s brave general) words of exhortation and rebuke to the rebellious men did not change their minds. They also turned against al-Ashtar.

Ali, was on the verge of a decisive victory that day, only to be outwitted by Amr and Mu'awiyah, and this near victory turned into the instrument of his troubled future and eventual death.

from:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch8.html#ch8-6

This sort of sanctified dishonesty is also justified in the minds of many Muslims on the basis that everyone else who opposes Islam is lying. For many Muslims, it is absolutely inconceivable that anyone could ever reject Islam on logical or rational grounds, therefore to claim to do so indicates a failing in intelligence or morality on the part of the infidel. Schuon quite insightfully illuminates us to the attitude of the Muslim mind,

"The intellectual - and thereby the rational - foundation of Islam results in the average Muslim having a curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim's imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things."27

This insight elucidates many things which those who deal with Muslims on a regular basis can readily observe. It explains why Muslim apologetic defense of Islam is so often very elementary, even childish, in its presentation, and often quickly breaks down into name-calling against the infidel who has refuted Islamic arguments. It enlightens us as to why Muslims will loudly trumpet the "logic" and "rationality" of Islam while simultaneously defending their faith with circular reasoning and other errors of logic. This is why Muslims can, without any apparent irony, claim that Islam is a "religion of peace", even when the testimony of both history and current events bellows the opposite. For most Muslims, the idea that an infidel could reject Islam because of a sincere concern for knowing the truth is absolutely inconceivable. Hence, the infidel must be lying when he or she present facts and arguments against Islam, and the infidel must be an especially tricky liar when the facts and arguments cannot be answered by the Muslim. Hence, the resort to taqiyya to turn aside infidel lies so that the logic of truth, a priori defined as anything Islamic, will stand firm.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

The difference between faith and knowledge.

I don't see why you have such a hard time grasping what that means.

So Peter, as a man of faith, does a very human thing and superficially rejects Christ in an effort to preserve his own ass. And then Peter, as a man of knowledge, draws a line and stands it.

Tell me, Randolfo--have you faith or knowledge? And what of the next guy?

I don't see what the issue of Peter as a man of knowledge has to do with anything unless we're prepared to assert that religious faith is, in fact, widespread and common knowledge.

And it's not.

my contension is, & if you can grasp it, is that up until the resurrection, Peter had only a little faith that the man he had followed was the true messiah, Peter still didn't get the part about death or resurrection, he was thinking in human terms, so he acted quite human, I'm sure you would have stood up to the Jewish & Roman authorities?
but after, he had both Faith & Knowledge that Jesus was who He claimed to be. also, if you remember, Pentocost had just happened, so they all had been touched by the Spirit of God.
its a before & after picture, get it? or do I have to draw it for you?

I have faith only, not being prone to visions, epilectic siezures or somesuch, I arrived at faith by chance & logic (that this universe has a Creator, that life has an Author & that we are made in someone's Image)

 

[Tiassa]

I'm sure you would have stood up to the Jewish & Roman authorities?

It's easy enough for me to say yes, of course I would have.

its a before & after picture, get it? or do I have to draw it for you?

What you're too busy sniveling to realize, Randolfo, is the simple fact that I have provided for you a record of someone lying for their faith. That Peter still had the good graces of God within him to make that later stand is only reinforcement of my point.

Are you capable of understanding that?

Peter made a rejection of Christ, and he was not cast out for that rejection.

I have faith only, not being prone to visions, epilectic siezures or somesuch, I arrived at faith by chance & logic (that this universe has a Creator, that life has an Author & that we are made in someone's Image)

You call it "logic"?

 

[WildBlueYonder]

What you're too busy sniveling to realize, Randolfo, is the simple fact that I have provided for you a record of someone lying for their faith. That Peter still had the good graces of God within him to make that later stand is only reinforcement of my point.

Are you capable of understanding that?

Peter made a rejection of Christ, and he was not cast out for that rejection.

I'm capable of understanding many things, are you?
Its just that you have not made your point to me, also, you have not read the part about Jesus reinstating Peter after the Resurrection, too bad, also, since you do not know Greek, it would tell you that "love" in the part of "if you love me, feed my sheep" is the greek word "agape", which you should now understand, since you are a dad (unconditional love)

problem may be, since to me, you are too blind to see & to you, I am too blind to see, this is a standstill

You call it "logic"?

are you still Wicca? do you call that logic?
ok, smarty pants, here's a question for you:
who or what created the universe? what you say? cosmic egg, big bang?
wrong answer, do you really expect people to believe you, have faith in what can not be empirically tested, seen with our own eyes? what faith you have, in numbers, theories, wishfull thinking

here's a little Latin for you, "ex nihilo", look up the concept

 

[Tiassa]

It's your condescending ignorance, Randolfo, that shows the weakness of your faith. How deeply that weakness runs, or how broadly it spreads, is up to you.

the greek word " agape ", which you should now understand, since you are a dad (unconditional love)

Standard fare for both confirmed Lutherans and graduates of Jesuit-run high schools.

Its just that you have not made your point to me, also, you have not read the part about Jesus reinstating Peter after the Resurrection, too bad, also, since you do not know Greek, it would tell you that "love" in the part of "if you love me, feed my sheep" is the greek word "agape", which you should now understand, since you are a dad (unconditional love)

There's something annoying about that way of posting. I'll demonstrate. We'll go look up Peter's reinstatement and then discuss why your point only reinforces what I'm telling you.

You may simply be placing too much weight on your own moral perspective on the idea of lying.

The Risen Lord confirms Peter's precedence. In spite of this weakness, his position as head of the Apostles was later confirmed by Jesus , and his precedence was not less conspicuous after the Resurrection than before. The women, who were the first to find Christ's tomb empty, received from the angel a special message for Peter (Mark 16:7). To him alone of the Apostles did Christ appear on the first day after the Resurrection (Luke 24:34; I Corinthians 15:5). But, most important of all, when He appeared at the Lake of Genesareth, Christ renewed to Peter His special commission to feed and defend His flock, after Peter had thrice affirmed his special love for his Master (John, xxi, 15-17). In conclusion Christ foretold the violent death Peter would have to suffer, and thus invited him to follow Him in a special manner (ibid., 20-23). Thus was Peter called and trained for the Apostleship and clothed with the primacy of the Apostles , which he exercised in a most unequivocal manner after Christ's Ascension into Heaven .

(Catholic Encyclopedia)

Mark 16:

And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you." And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

(Mark 16. 5-8, RSV)

Seems to me things are business as usual inasmuch as they can be with Christ crucified.

Luke 24:

And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"

(Luke 24.33-34, RSV)

Not much to go on there.

1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

(1 Corinthians 15.3-5)

I mention this because it is coupled with Luke 24 in the Encyclopedia entry. But there's nothing of use here.

Which brings us to ....

John 21:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go."

(John 21.15-18, RSV)

I will note here a study guide provided by David Guzik:

B. The public restoration of Peter

1. ( 15-16 ) Jesus inquires about Peter's love

-a. Jesus met with Peter individually on the day of His resurrection, ( Luke 24:34 ) but a public restoration was also needed

-b. Jesus strangely asks Peter to compare his love for Him with that of the other disciples

--i. It is possible that "these" refers to a fisherman's life, but probably not

--ii. But Peter had claimed a superior love ( Matthew 26:33 ). Does he still have this proud estimation of his devotion?

-c. Jesus asks about agape love (all giving, uncaused, unselfish love); Peter answers with phileo love (reciprocal, friendly affection)

--i. Some translations have Peter answering "I am your friend"

--ii. Some commentators see no distinctions, others say that Peter is now more reserved in his proclamation of devotion

-d. For Peter to follow through with that love for Jesus, he must give himself to the service of God's people

2. ( 17 ) Jesus asks Peter a third time

-a. This time, Jesus asks if Peter does in fact have a friendly devotion to Jesus; Peter leaves the question with Jesus' omniscience

-b. What really grieved Peter was the three-fold repetition, because it was a plain reminder of his previous three-fold denial

--i. Jesus restores us by causing us to face squarely our point of failure, then challeng-ing us to set our eyes on the work ahead

--ii. Jesus doesn't ask "are you sorry?" or "will you promise never to do that again?" "Jesus Christ asks each one of us, not for obedience primarily, not for repentance, not for vows, not for conduct, but for a heart ; and that being given, all the rest will follow" (Maclaren)

-c. Jesus allowed Peter a three-fold public affirmation of love to replace a three-fold denial, and gave him a three-fold challenge

(Guzik Study Guide)

"The Public Restoration of Peter." It has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Now, the essential question: Why?

It wasn't for Jesus. It wasn't for God. It wasn't even directly for the "public."

It was for Peter--"Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you."

That's all Jesus wanted him to remember. It's a pep talk more than anything else, to remind him of what's what, and what's important. As with Judas' betrayal, Christ needed Peter's abandonment; it was all part of the plan.

You seem to be making my point again. Peter's third answer indicates that he understands that the only way to prove his faith is to have faith. Christ can ask him 'til Judgment Day, but the only way Peter can prove it is to believe it, as God knows what is in a man's heart. With that public demonstration, Christ leads Peter to the obvious point so that Peter can cease worrying about it and get on with what's important: "Feed my sheep."

As Guzik notes of Maclaren: Jesus doesn't ask for sorrow or repentance. All he asks is that Peter get on with the important business of saving the damn world.

As to what's annoying? If you put chapter and verse in there, instead of just referring to the story, I tend to stick more to the chapter and verse, and not waste both our time collecting references. As it is, I don't mind the Catholic Encyclopedia research, nor the inclusion of three other books of the Bible because it only reinforces the point that nowhere in the Bible did Peter fall from grace or tarnish his own status in his denial of Christ.
___________________

• The Bible, Revised Standard Verison - see http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
• Guzik, Dave. "Study Guide for John Chapter 21." See http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1090404743-7061.html
• Kirsch, J.P. "Saint Peter, Prince of Apostles." Catholic Encyclopedia. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

 

[Tiassa]

are you still Wicca? do you call that logic?

Why would I call magick logic? The Craft is more intuitive than logic, more passionate than logic allows. It's part of the nature of religion.

ok, smarty pants, here's a question for you:

(chortle!)

who or what created the universe? what you say? cosmic egg, big bang?

Don't have an answer for you yet. But there is a fascinating effort ongoing to find out. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called science.

wrong answer, do you really expect people to believe you, have faith in what can not be empirically tested, seen with our own eyes?

You seem to have difficulty with the word, "faith".

here's a little Latin for you, " ex nihilo ", look up the concept

I've got a better idea: You could try getting a point.

Seriously ... what is the point of raising ex nihilo now? If we're going to scamper around and chase our tails on that one, I'm going to have to ask for a reason.

 

[567]

***who or what created the universe? what you say? cosmic egg, big bang? ***


Jesus did not create the universe.....my thick headed friend. He couldn't created himself.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

Why would I call magick logic? The Craft is more intuitive than logic, more passionate than logic allows. It's part of the nature of religion.

so your saying wicca is better than logic? or at least has some magical essesnce? I think magic, intuition & passion are not very logical or scientific planes in the realms of human endevor

Don't have an answer for you yet. But there is a fascinating effort ongoing to find out. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's called science.

ffffuuuunnnnny, he he he, I get it!
so, how does wicca fit into science, are they mutually exclusive, merged or ?

I've got a better idea: You could try getting a point.

I have, you just don't get it, my pointy-eared friend
also, speaking about "getting to the point", why have you felt like setting this thread on a tangent? if you feel so strongly about this subject, why don't you start a thread on Peter's lie, instead of trying to hijack this one?

Seriously ... what is the point of raising ex nihilo now? If we're going to scamper around and chase our tails on that one, I'm going to have to ask for a reason.

why choose to use "ex nihilo" now?:

reason 1) current scientific thinking states that the universe was created by a big bang from a cosmic egg; my contension is that no one could tell what was at the beginning, its pure conjecture, pure math, QP & other exotic theories, etc... want some string for your Schroeder's cat?

reason 2) 'ex nihilo' is a simple & straight forward answer (Occams razor), it has as much proof as any other, because they are all based on faith; one that God created the Universe, the other that Quantum physics can explain the universe & its laws, etc... do you feel strange or charmed yet?
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Maimonides_Fourth_Principle_Ex_Nihilo.asp

 

[WildBlueYonder]

It's your condescending ignorance, Randolfo, that shows the weakness of your faith. How deeply that weakness runs, or how broadly it spreads, is up to you.

wow, your condescending tone shows your "anger" or "frustration"? & by 'weakness' I assume you mean, as opposed to your religion's 'strongness'?

you say:
“
Its just that you have not made your point to me,
I say:
"
also, you have not read the part about Jesus reinstating Peter after the Resurrection, too bad, also, since you do not know Greek, it would tell you that "love" in the part of "if you love me, feed my sheep" is the greek word "agape", which you should now understand, since you are a dad (unconditional love)

Standard fare for both confirmed Lutherans and graduates of Jesuit-run high schools.

did they also say that Jesus uses "Agape" the first 2 times, then uses "Philio " (brotherly love) the last time, to make the point to Peter?
by their interactions, I assume that most of Jesus' disciples were bilingual in Aramaic & Greek (like most Romans on that side of the Med) not sure if, Aramaic makes those distinctions, but?
http://cacsi.com/Father/TeachingOurChildrenAboutBiblicalFairness.htm

There's something annoying about that way of posting. I'll demonstrate. We'll go look up Peter's reinstatement and then discuss why your point only reinforces what I'm telling you.

You seem to be making my point again. Peter's third answer indicates that he understands that the only way to prove his faith is to have faith. Christ can ask him 'til Judgment Day, but the only way Peter can prove it is to believe it, as God knows what is in a man's heart. With that public demonstration, Christ leads Peter to the obvious point so that Peter can cease worrying about it and get on with what's important: "Feed my sheep."

annoying? last time I checked, no one was required to post in a prescribed style, what are you an editor? if anything, I think you need an editor, someone to keep you on track & steer you back form those tangents of yours. I feel that I may have to moderate the threads I start, so that all these ad hominem , straw man, ad Nauseum attacks can be re-directed.
as to the main point here about Peter, sorry, Tiassa, but you'll never understand this until you become a Christian

As to what's annoying? If you put chapter and verse in there, instead of just referring to the story, I tend to stick more to the chapter and verse, and not waste both our time collecting references. As it is, I don't mind the Catholic Encyclopedia research, nor the inclusion of three other books of the Bible because it only reinforces the point that nowhere in the Bible did Peter fall from grace or tarnish his own status in his denial of Christ.

if all you want is that, just say so, don't make a federal case out of it