Search results

Jesus knowing Peter is one thing JR, it could well be and in all likelihood was the case that He knew his foibles like all manner of other people. You don't get to downplay what was said and generalize a verse that is absolutely specific with no room for doubt on the score; Here it is again...

Oh, I dunno, a message that got folk to 'get the message' so to speak? It's not like this all reads as God decided to destroy a city no matter what and lo and behold it came about is it? You can't apply this to what Jesus said to Peter when it's obvious He knew what Peter was going to do.

Jesus said that He was telling Peter the truth. That he would deny him not once, not twice but three times before a rooster crowed. How more specific could it possibly get if Jesus didn't know what Peter was going to do?! Your position denies that Jesus was telling Peter a specific truth and the...

Neither. God wasn't telling an individual person in specific, concise detail as to what he was going to do as Jesus did with Peter and where such came about. Stop deflecting and answer as to why God would be so specific as He was with Peter if He wasn't telling him the truth.

So your idea of a rational being includes 'being temporal' and apparently abiding by your notion of what such and such does and doesn't allow. Arrogant much?

God stated to Peter that He was telling him the truth in specific detail. Is there some reason why God would tell Peter that He was telling him the truth only to actually lie about it? Why do you suppose this event is recorded in all four gospels JR, for a laugh? If Christ knew that Peter...

What does "What it meant for God" mean exactly? Seems utterly clear what God was saying here. Here it is again: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." Now, why would God say He's telling someone the truth if He...

Yes.

So, when Jesus expressly states that He's telling the truth about something and what another person is going to do, He could be wrong in your opinion then? Why would Jesus state that He was telling the truth if it wasn't or couldn't be the case? That sound rational to you? He could have so...

You want to know why I think Jesus could not be wrong? Wow, this is Twilight Zone territory now really. You don't believe that when Jesus expressly says to someone that He's telling them the truth about what they're going to do that it isn't for real? If you doubt Jesus's own direct words to...

Scroll through the thread. God isn't limited by you dude.

What answer do you need that hasn't been given in regards to Jesus and Peter? How could it be any more clear? Jesus obviously knew what Peter was going to do and in specific detail and in no uncertain terms told him so. Jesus said to Peter that He was telling him the truth that he would deny Him...

Addressed in the last few pages of this thread. I'm not gonna repeat it all again. 'Big scoop'? Wow Stripe, you've been funny and not inadvertently for a change! Yes, the man had a choice as with one of my replies to JR if you'd been following along.

Seriously? I'm saying that Jesus could hardly be wrong and that's your response???! Wow... So, when Jesus clearly tells a person that He's telling them the truth about what they're going to do as is the case with Peter then it's just Christ being confident about it? Maybe the rooster was just...

Is this a group post or something or are you referring to yourself in the royal...eh, nevermind. Look, you can convince yourself that foreknowledge equates to determinism as you like, you have anyway despite the obvious counter arguments that have been made time and again. Your ice cream...

He could hardly be wrong could He? He does tell Peter He's telling him the truth about what's he's going to do after all. Hardly a hunch or something...

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." Sounds like Jesus knew exactly what Peter was going to do and in very specific fashion. Pretty darned clear really.

It's already been explained and in basic terms so repeating the same serves what purpose exactly? You didn't bring a 'challenge', you brought some scenario you thought was worthy of being credited as one when it wasn't. The actual case of Peter was and is far more relevant. No, I don't think God...

Er, on Peter disowning Him three times. Peter replied, "Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will." "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never...

Of course they aren't at least in relation to choice/will which is what's being discussed in context. There's a difference between programming people to do certain things and allowing will while having foreknowledge of what people are going to do. Pretty basic stuff. Your question has been...