[God's Truth]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

This is the issue....deal with it.

Well, go ahead; convince me with scripture and wisdom from God.

Why did Jesus reinstate Peter if his faith did not fail him?

[moonbeam]

Originally Posted by God's Truth

Well, go ahead; convince me with scripture and wisdom from God.

Why did Jesus reinstate Peter if his faith did not fail him?

You are a persistent fellow...a most stubborn ewe stamping her feet in defiance at the word's of the Good Shepherd.

If I accept your false contention, your reasonable objection, that Simon, also known as Peter, experienced in that moment of denial where he denied that he knew Jesus three times; If I accept that that denial constitutes what the Father or Jesus would define as a "failure of faith" then I must accept also, by logical necessity that Jesus prayer to His God and Father was ineffectual.

That is a serious accusation, that must necessarily follow if your objection is insisted upon by you personally.

Lets have a look at some of the statements made by Jesus leading up to the denials of Peter. But first lets look at the scene before hand where Jesus mentions to Simon something, yet future, but concerning him.

Jesus has just completed the eating and sharing of bread and drinking of wine, the symbols of His body and blood, and after a brief discourse turns to Simon and says

Simon, Simon, Behold ! Satan has claimed you for himself, in order to sift you as wheat, But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have been restored, make your brothers strong. And he said to Him, Lord, I am ready to go with You both into prison and into death. And He said, I tell you Peter, surely the **** will not crow today before you deny knowing Me three times.

What is interesting here is that Jesus knows before Peter verbalizes the denials what will be said, and obviously He is aware of the circumstances involved.

Question - If Jesus knows what will transpire in every detail before Peter performs the actions - than one can correctly deduce that His prayer request concerning Peters faith, namely, that your faith not fail, must, by logical necessity, have been answered - in that Peter's faith, does in fact, in that circumstance, not constitute what is regarded by the Father, to whom Jesus made the request, as a failure of faith.

That is all that is required to establish beyond any reasonable objection that Peter's denial does not constitute a failure of faith - as defined by the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.

If you continue to insist otherwise regardless of the obvious expounded above...than you are most certainly...an extremely stubborn little goat.

.

[God's Truth]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

You are a persistent fellow...a most stubborn ewe stamping her feet in defiance at the word's of the Good Shepherd.

If I accept your false contention, your reasonable objection, that Simon, also known as Peter, experienced in that moment of denial where he denied that he knew Jesus three times; If I accept that that denial constitutes what the Father or Jesus would define as a "failure of faith" then I must accept also, by logical necessity that Jesus prayer to His God and Father was ineffectual.

Peter’s faith did fail, but not beyond repair. He wept bitterly after he realized what he had done.
Jesus reinstated Peter.

Originally Posted by moonbeam

That is a serious accusation, that must necessarily follow if your objection is insisted upon by you personally.

Lets have a look at some of the statements made by Jesus leading up to the denials of Peter. But first lets look at the scene before hand where Jesus mentions to Simon something, yet future, but concerning him.

Jesus has just completed the eating and sharing of bread and drinking of wine, the symbols of His body and blood, and after a brief discourse turns to Simon and says

Simon, Simon, Behold ! Satan has claimed you for himself, in order to sift you as wheat, But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have been restored, make your brothers strong. And he said to Him, Lord, I am ready to go with You both into prison and into death. And He said, I tell you Peter, surely the **** will not crow today before you deny knowing Me three times.

What is interesting here is that Jesus knows before Peter verbalizes the denials what will be said, and obviously He is aware of the circumstances involved.

Question - If Jesus knows what will transpire in every detail before Peter performs the actions - than one can correctly deduce that His prayer request concerning Peters faith, namely, that your faith not fail, must, by logical necessity, have been answered - in that Peter's faith, does in fact, in that circumstance, not constitute what is regarded by the Father, to whom Jesus made the request, as a failure of faith.

That is all that is required to establish beyond any reasonable objection that Peter's denial does not constitute a failure of faith - as defined by the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.

If you continue to insist otherwise regardless of the obvious expounded above...than you are most certainly...an extremely stubborn little goat.

Your demons are getting very riled. You cannot help but be slanderous can you? It is just in your nature.

[moonbeam]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

You are a persistent fellow...a most stubborn ewe stamping her feet in defiance at the word's of the Good Shepherd.

If I accept your false contention, your reasonable objection, that Simon, also known as Peter, experienced in that moment of denial where he denied that he knew Jesus three times; If I accept that that denial constitutes what the Father or Jesus would define as a "failure of faith" then I must accept also, by logical necessity that Jesus prayer to His God and Father was ineffectual.

That is a serious accusation, that must necessarily follow if your objection is insisted upon by you personally.

Lets have a look at some of the statements made by Jesus leading up to the denials of Peter. But first lets look at the scene before hand where Jesus mentions to Simon something, yet future, but concerning him.

Jesus has just completed the eating and sharing of bread and drinking of wine, the symbols of His body and blood, and after a brief discourse turns to Simon and says

Simon, Simon, Behold ! Satan has claimed you for himself, in order to sift you as wheat, But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have been restored, make your brothers strong. And he said to Him, Lord, I am ready to go with You both into prison and into death. And He said, I tell you Peter, surely the **** will not crow today before you deny knowing Me three times.

What is interesting here is that Jesus knows before Peter verbalizes the denials what will be said, and obviously He is aware of the circumstances involved.

Question - If Jesus knows what will transpire in every detail before Peter performs the actions - than one can correctly deduce that His prayer request concerning Peters faith, namely, that your faith not fail, must, by logical necessity, have been answered - in that Peter's faith, does in fact, in that circumstance, not constitute what is regarded by the Father, to whom Jesus made the request, as a failure of faith.

That is all that is required to establish beyond any reasonable objection that Peter's denial does not constitute a failure of faith - as defined by the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.

If you continue to insist otherwise regardless of the obvious expounded above...than you are most certainly...an extremely stubborn little goat.

.

The above post and the logical conclusions of the Question posed section are framed to leave only one alternative in regards the basic reason one would have to adhere to...if one continued to insist upon drawing a disparate conclusion.

The disparate conclusion would have to revolve around a central theme of unbelief...in the veracity of the text concerned or of the person speaking.

In either case that is a poor outcome.

.

[xAvarice]

"Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?"

Would his answer change if his wife asked him the same question?

[moonbeam]

.

For further consideration concerning the effectual nature of Jesus prayers.

The scene...The Garden of Gethsemane


And he came up to Jesus immediately and said, Greetings, Master ! And he kissed Him.

But Jesus said to him, Friend, why have you come ?

Then thy came up and laid hold on Jesus and held Him.And behold ! One of those with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword. And striking a servant of the high priest, he took off his ear.

Than Jesus said to him, Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword.

Or do you think that I am not able now to call upon My Father, and He will place beside Me more than twelve legions of angels ?



PS - just something to think about in regards the effectualness of Jesus prayer on behalf of Simon called Peter or any of His children

.

[God's Truth]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

The above post and the logical conclusions of the Question posed section are framed to leave only one alternative in regards the basic reason one would have to adhere to...if one continued to insist upon drawing a disparate conclusion.

The disparate conclusion would have to revolve around a central theme of unbelief...in the veracity of the text concerned or of the person speaking.

In either case that is a poor outcome.

.

Why don't you explain why Jesus reinstated Peter.

[drstevej]

"Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?"

The key word is MORE not THESE.

[moonbeam]

Originally Posted by God's Truth

Why don't you explain why Jesus reinstated Peter.

I think I have done enough explaining

Why don't you shred my argument line by line ?

There by establishing your contention...and destroying mine ?

Sounds like the thing for you to do ?

[God's Truth]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

I think I have done enough explaining

Why don't you shred my argument line by line ?

There by establishing your contention...and destroying mine ?

Sounds like the thing for you to do ?

You cannot answer questions about your beliefs. Answer the question since you claim to have true wisdom on this topic.

[moonbeam]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

You are a persistent fellow...a most stubborn ewe stamping her feet in defiance at the word's of the Good Shepherd.

If I accept your false contention, your reasonable objection, that Simon, also known as Peter, experienced in that moment of denial where he denied that he knew Jesus three times; If I accept that that denial constitutes what the Father or Jesus would define as a "failure of faith" then I must accept also, by logical necessity that Jesus prayer to His God and Father was ineffectual.

That is a serious accusation, that must necessarily follow if your objection is insisted upon by you personally.

Lets have a look at some of the statements made by Jesus leading up to the denials of Peter. But first lets look at the scene before hand where Jesus mentions to Simon something, yet future, but concerning him.

Jesus has just completed the eating and sharing of bread and drinking of wine, the symbols of His body and blood, and after a brief discourse turns to Simon and says

Simon, Simon, Behold ! Satan has claimed you for himself, in order to sift you as wheat, But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And when you have been restored, make your brothers strong. And he said to Him, Lord, I am ready to go with You both into prison and into death. And He said, I tell you Peter, surely the **** will not crow today before you deny knowing Me three times.

What is interesting here is that Jesus knows before Peter verbalizes the denials what will be said, and obviously He is aware of the circumstances involved.

Question - If Jesus knows what will transpire in every detail before Peter performs the actions - than one can correctly deduce that His prayer request concerning Peters faith, namely, that your faith not fail, must, by logical necessity, have been answered - in that Peter's faith, does in fact, in that circumstance, not constitute what is regarded by the Father, to whom Jesus made the request, as a failure of faith.

That is all that is required to establish beyond any reasonable objection that Peter's denial does not constitute a failure of faith - as defined by the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.

If you continue to insist otherwise regardless of the obvious expounded above...than you are most certainly...an extremely stubborn little goat.

.

Here is an example of my wisdom and knowledge....such as God has given me.


I am still waiting to see yours.

.

[God's Truth]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

Here is an example of my wisdom and knowledge....such as God has given me.


I am still waiting to see yours.

.

Answer the question.

Why did Jesus reinstate Peter?

[moonbeam]

Originally Posted by God's Truth

Answer the question.

Why did Jesus reinstate Peter?

Why did Jesus reinstate Peter?.....I don't know

Why don't you tell us ?

[God's Truth]

Originally Posted by moonbeam

Why did Jesus reinstate Peter?.....I don't know

Why don't you tell us ?

I have already explained it; it is because Peter’s faith failed, but not beyond repair. After Peter realized exactly what he had done, And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Luke 22:62 he wept bitterly.

[moonbeam]

Originally Posted by God's Truth

I have already explained it; it is because Peter’s faith failed, but not beyond repair. After Peter realized exactly what he had done, And he went outside and wept bitterly.

Luke 22:62 he wept bitterly.

Eye c

that you are deaf dumb and blind