[kosta50]

Truly, every Christian has received at least one divine revelation: that Jesus Christ is Lord...And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." - Matt 16:16-17

But, A-G, it is obvious that Peter did not really believe. If he did, he would not have denied Christ; he would not have started sinking on the lake, etc. He said he believed, but when challeneged, his faith failed.

If his faith was given, as you say, then his faith was also taken away. We have no control over it. If God gave Peter the faith to say what he is quoted as saying Mat 16, then God must have taken that faith away from him when he denied Jesus shortly thereafter.

But, the truth is, Peter did not say Jesus is God. We read into this for obvious reasons. In the context of the Jewish mindset of a simple fisherman, he said (stripped of all the hyped tag-names) "You are the anointed one, the favored one of the living God." He does not say that Jesus is God.

Those favored by the living God (i.e. son of God) was a title of angels (benei Elohim, sons of God, as in Job), powerful Jewish kings (of Davidian line), even powerful individuals, or simply those in "filial" relationship with God (adopted by Him):

"Be like a father to orphans, and instead of a husband to their mother; you will then be like a son of the Most High, and he will love you more than does your mother" (Sirach 4:10)

Every Jewish king was believed anoinited by God. And Jewish messiah was supposed to be a Jewish king in the literal sense, and therefore anointed by God, not divine. Peter is simply stating that Jesus was that (future) king.

Many people think Jesus was condemned because He claimed to be the Son of God. That is patently false! He was condemned because He claimed that He had the power to forgive sins, which made Him equal to God, and that was blasphemy.

When you really think about it, the scenario is a mind-boggling: a poor carpenter from Nazareth convincing a dozen or so illiterate peasants and fisherman that He is really the savior king of Israel, and that they are His royal lieutenants.

It was probably believable until things started getting rough, then the whole thing fell apart. The real belief did not start until after His resurrection (a percieved miracle and not some divine "message" from God, downloaded into their hearts, as Paul claimed his).

But even then they doubted and wanted "proof." Thomas doubted aloud. But they all had their doubts. Not one of them is quoted as saying "Of course! I knew it" when the news reached that that Christ was no longer in His tomb.

What makes us Christians is an irrational belief (or hope) in bodily resurrection. But even Paul teaches to the contrary: "I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." [I Corinthians 15:50]

This tells me that Paul believed (consistent with his Judaism) in spiritual resurrection, but not one of the body (this would also be very consistent with some other very Gnostic statements of Paul's earlier writings).

[hosepipe]

[.. When you really think about it, the scenario is a mind-boggling: a poor carpenter from Nazareth convincing a dozen or so illiterate peasants and fisherman that He is really the savior king of Israel, and that they are His royal lieutenants. ..]

An element of God(father, son, holy spirit) becoming "HUMAN" is indeed mind boggling.. Not THAT any human that ever lived could/can/or will ever fully grasp the reality of it..

What God is cannot be grasped intellectually by logic.. by anyone except God himself... surely not by a bunch of teenagers(apostles).. Anyone(you/me) expecting THEM to grasp the full import of the events transpiring around them (about Jesus) is silly in the extreme.. Even the word Messiah barely covers a small part of Jesus ministry.. The creator becoming (like) one of the created is very creative.. Even as one of the created Jesus was infinitely more than that..

All the authors of both testaments even guided and anointed by the Holy Spirit could only share what they could mentally grasp.. even with a "vision/revelation".. Judging those authors harshly can only be done by one that has never had a "vision"..

[betty boop]

What makes us Christians is an irrational belief (or hope) in bodily resurrection.

So kosta50, are you a Christian or a Jew? (I.e., do you believe in bodily resurrection or not?)

I get the impression you don't much care for the "irrational".... And like Doubting Thomas, require convincing proof of the things you'd like to believe.

But faith itself is "irrational" -- at least in the sense that it is the evidence of things unseen, yet nonetheless known (yes I know, this is a paradox).

.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your testimony and insights!

But, A-G, it is obvious that Peter did not really believe. If he did, he would not have denied Christ; he would not have started sinking on the lake, etc. He said he believed, but when challeneged, his faith failed. If his faith was given, as you say, then his faith was also taken away. We have no control over it. If God gave Peter the faith to say what he is quoted as saying Mat 16, then God must have taken that faith away from him when he denied Jesus shortly thereafter.

Peter had the seed of the faith, the initial divine revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord. Every Christian has this. (parable of the sower)

Where and how we go from there, our maturing (“working out our salvation” Phl 2:12) in Him – is different for each one of us. Some, for instance, never taste spiritual “meat” but are always on “milk.” (I Cr 3) Peter stumbled quite a bit as he matured. Paul hit the ground running. John and Mary (Luke 10:38-42) – in my view – found the “good part.”

But, the truth is, Peter did not say Jesus is God. We read into this for obvious reasons. In the context of the Jewish mindset of a simple fisherman, he said (stripped of all the hyped tag-names) "You are the anointed one, the favored one of the living God." He does not say that Jesus is God.

You are quibbling over the translation. The Jews were expecting the anointed one, the Messiah. Their error then, and now, was in expecting the Messiah to be a mortal king and conqueror only. They never saw Him as the Lamb of God. Jesus did not open the eyes of the Apostles to this Truth until they had to know it. They could only handle so much at a time:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

The operative part of the passage is not what Peter said but what Jesus said, i.e. what it meant – that the Father revealed it to him, flesh and blood did not reveal it.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. – Matt 16:17

The point is that Peter was the first to receive this revelation from the Father. That is what made Peter the “rock” in the context of The Rock (Deut 32:4):

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65

You continued:

But even then they doubted and wanted "proof." Thomas doubted aloud. But they all had their doubts. Not one of them is quoted as saying "Of course! I knew it" when the news reached that that Christ was no longer in His tomb.

When they knew Christ in the flesh, they knew Him as another being – spatially separated from their own persons. But at Pentecost, that knowledge became quite personal and they began to share in the mind of Christ. (Acts, I Cor 2, Romans 8, etc.)

There is no doubt that Christ lives for those of us who "know" Him because He "knows" us!

What makes us Christians is an irrational belief (or hope) in bodily resurrection. But even Paul teaches to the contrary: "I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." [I Corinthians 15:50] This tells me that Paul believed (consistent with his Judaism) in spiritual resurrection, but not one of the body (this would also be very consistent with some other very Gnostic statements of Paul's earlier writings).

There is a physical body and there is a spiritual body. After the resurrection, Christ’s body was quite real - but it was a resurrection body and thus different from the one He had before.

Thomas was able to thrust his hand in His side – and yet Christ appears to several without revealing His identity and in other instances, appears in the midst of a closed room. This is the type of body we shall also have:

So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. – I Cor 15:42-45

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:5-6

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body. – Romans 8:22-23

A presumption that the spiritual body and the resurrection body are mutually exclusive - or that the resurrection body is physical or non-physical (either/or) - is again superimposing the Aristolean Law of Identity on God.

God's power is not limited to man's logic.