they were gay friends,
he lovingly used to call jesus pokipookipoo
and jesus used to call him satan
2007-02-07 10:58:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by pete 1
·
1⤊
5⤋
Peter immediately “took [Jesus] aside and commenced rebuking him, saying: ‘Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this destiny at all.’” How did Jesus respond? “Turning his back, he said to Peter: ‘Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.’” What a contrast there was between the two outlooks! Jesus willingly accepted the self-sacrificing course God had assigned him, one that would lead to his death on a torture stake within a few months. Peter recommended a comfortable course. “Be kind to yourself,” he said. Peter undoubtedly had good intentions. Still, Jesus rebuked him because Peter had on that occasion allowed himself to be influenced by Satan. Peter had “not God’s mind, but that of men.”
Peter has unwittingly made himself an agent of Satan. Jesus’ retort is as decisive as when he answered Satan in the wilderness. There the Devil tried to tempt Jesus with an easy life, a kingship without suffering. Now Peter encourages him to be easy on himself. Jesus knows that this is not his Father’s will. His life must be one of self-sacrifice, not one of self-gratification. Peter becomes a stumbling block to such a course; his well-meaning sympathy becomes a trap. Jesus, though, sees clearly that if he entertained any idea of a life free from sacrifice, he would fall out of God’s favor by being caught in the death grip of a satanic trap.
2007-02-08 00:28:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by BJ 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Remember the temptation of Jesus at the mount? In the end of the paragraph, "Then the devil left him till the OPPORTUNE TIME."
I have to make all capital letters in the last two words because it is a sign that the devil really never left him. So, when Peter sounded to patronizing for Jesus, he knew at that time that Peter was under the spell of Satan. That is why Jesus said, "Get thee behind me Satan!"
2007-02-07 19:05:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rallie Florencio C 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Peter tried to keep Jesus from going to Jerusalem and performing the Atonement, which was Jesus' destiny and needed to be done for humanity's salvation. By trying to prevent this, Peter was recommending actions against God's will.
2007-02-07 19:32:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Senator John McClain 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because Peter listened to the lie that Satan told him and Jesus rebuked him for it.
2007-02-07 18:58:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jan P 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
By protesting Jesus' prediction that he would suffer, Peter was tempting Jesus to take the easy way out, to avoid the suffering and just manifest his messiah-hood. That's what "satan" means, "tempter". Jesus was ordering Peter to stop making it harder for him to go ahead with his destiny.
2007-02-07 19:19:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by skepsis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Peter said that he would follow Jesus no matter what. Kind of like predicting the future.And Jesus rebuked the idea and told hom exactly what was going to happen. Before the cock crows you will deny me three times. Guess which one of the two was correct!!
2007-02-07 19:03:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by michael m 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Matthew
31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
-Because Peter was not believing and making what Jesus said look foolish-
2007-02-07 18:59:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mandolyn Monkey Munch 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
peters refusal to accept Jesus' predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from His God appointed course and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus' dismissal off the devil in the temptation account (Mt 4:10)
2007-02-07 19:18:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Marysia 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Apparently he savoured men's things more than Jesus/god's thing.
2007-02-07 19:01:43
·
answer #10
·
answered by Dave P 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Maybe, but who cares - no man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.
2007-02-07 18:59:01
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋