Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
You are delusional as well as not so good with reading the bible.
The priest is stating something that goes against what his church teaches.

Where is the source that says this supposed church teaching then? Or are you speaking falsely again?

originally posted by: cooperton
Where is the source that says this supposed church teaching then?

I already stated it. I said that you might find a few people who will disagree, but every priest at every homily at every mass teaches 'influenced' and 'metaphorical'. That is what is taught in the seminaries and in third orders. That is what is taught in catechism classes and in masses. That is what is taught in bible studies. It is the Catholic position. You may find a few people who are off from that, but that's like finding a Muslim who eats bacon.

Or are you speaking falsely again?

Calling me a liar? That's rich. I don't lie. But you sure do get caught posting crap that is continually instantly debunked. Every time. You might want to refrain from calling people liars when you have such an obvious problem yourself.


As I said .... reading the ENTIRE BIBLE QUOTE .... Not just cherry picking 'get thee behind me Satan' ... Jesus didn't end with 'get thee behind me satan'. He continued with “You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.” He was clearly speaking to Peter because if He were speaking to Satan He wouldn't have said that. And there was no exorcism of Peter in scripture.

Peter was influenced ... not possessed.
Learn how to read the bible.

a reply to: Kurokage

Interesting.

Names of God

I've read at this site before. It lists Gods names and titles from the Bible.
Kinda interesting that there are so many.
I don't understand the pathological need Jehovahs Witness' have for calling God only Jehovah.
But it seems to make them happy so ... whatever.

a reply to: cooperton

You really have a bee in your bonnet, dont you? What's up, don't like someone showing you that you maybe misinterpreting it wrong?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I already stated it. I said that you might find a few people who will disagree, but every priest at every homily at every mass teaches 'influenced' and 'metaphorical'. That is what is taught in the seminaries and in third orders. That is what is taught in catechism classes and in masses

Another false statement. The catechism teaches that Satan is indeed a real being, a fallen angel, not a metaphor:

"Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church's Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called 'Satan' or the 'devil'. The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, created by God: 'The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.'"

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Jesus was therefore addressing Satan, the fallen angel, as shown by the grammar of using Satan as a 'vocative noun' in the passage.

The Bible disagrees with you, the catechism disagrees with you, and the only priest to write on the topic online also disagrees with you. It's ok to be wrong, but it's not ok to be in denial.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

You really have a bee in your bonnet, dont you? What's up, don't like some showing you that you maybe misinterpreting it wrong?

Nah I'm just defending my point against someone that is accusing me of ignorance. Caps lock is one of the indicators of who is truly having the bee in their bonnet.

originally posted by: cooperton
Another false statement.

No. The statement is correct.

The catechism teaches that Satan is indeed a real being, a fallen angel, not a metaphor:

No #. I never said Satan was a metaphor. I have stated in the past that I fully believe demons exist. You claiming that I called Satan a metaphor is wrong. Either you purposely tell untruths or you can't read and comprehend even at a grade school level.

Catholicism and Protestantism say that WHEN JESUS SAID TO PETER "get behind me Satan', that Jesus using that term at that time was a metaphor. Not that Satan himself was a metaphor.

Jesus was therefore addressing Satan, the fallen angel, as shown by the grammar of using Satan as a 'vocative noun' in the passage.

Incorrect. Because the FULL TEXT of the quote - and not just the one line you cherry pick - has Jesus going on to say this - “You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”. So Jesus was obviously talking to PETER. Because Jesus wouldn't say that to Satan. For you to leave off the entire quote is disingenuous. Learn how to read the bible.

The Bible disagrees with you,

No. It doesn't. I quoted the entire verse. You did not.

the catechism disagrees with you,

No. It doesn't. You ERRONEOUSLY claimed that I said Satan was a metaphor. That's pathetic of you. I said no such thing. Scripture scholars, both protestant and catholic, say that what Jesus was saying AT THAT TIME was a metaphor.

and the only priest to write on the topic online also disagrees with you.

As I said, you will be able to find a few people who disagree, but nearly the entire bulk of Catholicism and Protestantism agree that Peter was not possessed, but was only influenced, as is evident by the ENTIRE bible quote.

It's ok to be wrong, but it's not ok to be in denial.

YOU are wrong and in denial. Maybe you should start admitting your errors. Afterall, every single thing you ever post is instantly and credibly debunked.

Nah I'm just defending my point against someone that is accusing me of ignorance.

You are ignorant. And arrogant about it.'

Again ... the rest of the quote in full context ... Jesus wouldn't have said this to Satan. Obviously Peter wasn't possessed -

“You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”

a reply to: Kurokage

And he's actually trying to school me on Catholicism.
That's a riot.
I've been conservatrive Catholic all my life.
Third Order Carmelite for a good chunk of it.
Educated in a Franciscan Monastery.
Volunteer at EWTN for a decade.
And this nitwit thinks he can school me on 'Catholic'. LMFAO!!

originally posted by: FlyersFan
No #. I never said Satan was a metaphor. I have stated in the past that I fully believe demons exist. You claiming that I called Satan a metaphor is wrong. Either you purposely tell untruths or you can't read and comprehend even at a grade school level.

Your beliefs are so convoluted I don't even think you know what you are saying. If Jesus addresses Satan then He is addressing Satan. The Bible says it, and I believe it over your rantings.

Catholicism and Protestantism say that WHEN JESUS SAID TO PETER "get behind me Satan', that Jesus using that term at that time was a metaphor.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say that anywhere. The only Catholic Priest to write about it online says the opposite of what you are saying.

a reply to: FlyersFan

This isn't my argument and havent really read scripture the way you guys have but I think Peter spoke without thinking, and his words contradicted the words of Jesus, and so those of God. He's calling Jesus and the Holy Spirit a liar. Was it a step toward blasphemy? He was calling Peter Satan to wake him, or a proverbial slap in his face and not talking to the devil?
In my opinion Jesus really did have an ego.

originally posted by: cooperton
If Jesus addresses Satan then He is addressing Satan. The Bible says it, and I believe it over your rantings.

2 Billion Christians agree ... Jesus wasn't addressing Satan in Peter. It was a metaphor. Read the entire text and learn to read the bible correctly.

“You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”

That's what Jesus says after 'get thee behind me Satan'. WHY WOULD JESUS SAY THAT TO SATAN?????? Answer - he wouldn't.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say that anywhere.

I told you ... it says that EVERYWHERE. Every seminary. Every homily. Every catechism class. Every Sunday School. Every Mass. Every lecture. Every Catholic TV show.

The only Catholic Priest to write about it online says the opposite of what you are saying.

and as I said, you will find a few who disagree with the official position, that doesn't change the official position.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I told you ... it says that EVERYWHERE. Every seminary. Every homily. Every catechism class. Every Sunday School. Every Mass. Every lecture. Every Catholic TV show.

and yet you can't find one place where a Catholic authority says it. Whereas I have found a priest who says the opposite of what you're saying.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: FlyersFan

This isn't my argument

Dude come on flyersfan needs the atheist crowd to defend all her points

originally posted by: Kurokage
I think Peter spoke without thinking, and his words contradicted the words of Jesus, and so those of God. :

Yep. Right after Jesus said 'get thee behind me Satan" - He said - “You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”.

Peter was upset, and naturally so, and didn't want Christ to suffer. But Christ's mission was to suffer. So Peter wanting to stop the suffering spoke against Christ's mission. Probably most of humanity would not want to see another person suffer, so obviously Peter didn't fully understand Christ nor His mission at that point.

Jesus didn't say Peter was possessed. He said that Peter was thinking like a human and not like God. “You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”.

Obviously Jesus was talking to a human, Peter, and not to Satan. Because why would Christ say to Satan that he was thinking like a human and not like God? That wouldn't make any sense.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Obviously Jesus was talking to a human, Peter, and not to Satan. Because why would Christ say to Satan that he was thinking like a human and not like God? That wouldn't make any sense.

Then why in the Bible does the grammar show he was addressing Satan?

originally posted by: FlyersFan
2 Billion Christians agree ... Jesus wasn't addressing Satan in Peter. It was a metaphor. Read the entire text and learn to read the bible correctly.

“You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”

That's what Jesus says after 'get thee behind me Satan'. WHY WOULD JESUS SAY THAT TO SATAN?????? Answer - he wouldn't.

Satan's thinking is contrary to God

originally posted by: cooperton
Then why in the Bible does the grammar show he was addressing Satan?

The full text shows he wasn't.

Satan's thinking is contrary to God

You didn't properly answer the question -

“You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”
That's what Jesus says after 'get thee behind me Satan'. WHY WOULD JESUS SAY THAT TO SATAN??????
Answer .. He wasn't talking to Satan, He was talking to Peter

originally posted by: FlyersFan
“You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”
That's what Jesus says after 'get thee behind me Satan'. WHY WOULD JESUS SAY THAT TO SATAN??????

But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

He calls Satan a stumbling block, and then exclaims how Satanic thinking is humanly thinking, not Godly thinking. You can't get around the fact that Jesus is addressing Satan. Even if the first sentence is directed at Satan, and then rest of the statement is directed at Peter, which I don't think it is, it is clear from the text that Jesus is addressing Satan for at least the first part. The grammar specifically identifies Satan as the one being addressed.

originally posted by: cooperton
But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

]He calls Satan a stumbling block, and then exclaims how Satanic thinking is humanly thinking, not Godly thinking. You can't get around the fact that Jesus is addressing Satan. Even if the first sentence is directed at Satan, and then rest of the statement is directed at Peter, which I don't think it is, it is clear from the text that Jesus is addressing Satan for at least the first part. The grammar specifically identifies Satan as the one being addressed.

Incorrect. He is calling Peter a stumbling block and says to Peter how he is thinking like humans instead of like how God thinks. There is no way Jesus would have a conversation with Satan and tell Satan that he isn't thinking like God. That's ridiculous. The grammar of the ENTIRE TEXT taken together in context identifies Peter as the one being spoken to.

You are wrong. Take a bible study course.
Protestant (non fundamentalist) or Catholic. Your choice.
They'll say the same thing.

a reply to: FlyersFan

“You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”
That's what Jesus says after 'get thee behind me Satan'. WHY WOULD JESUS SAY THAT TO SATAN??????

Because it is written in the bible, it is for people reading the bible to see and understand. Jesus is saying that to everyone reading it to understand it, that God's thinking is not the way humans think, and knowing this then, humans can strive to seek how to think more like God when they realize their human value system needs a lot of work to get better.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Because it is written in the bible,....

It is written in the bible that Jesus said that to PETER .. not to Satan.
"Get thee behind me Satan. You are thinking not as God does,” he explained, “but as human beings do.”
That's a conversation Jesus had with PETER. Not with Satan. Peter was not possessed.
Calling Peter Satan was metaphorical. Satan exists. But he wasn't possessing Peter.
There is nothing in scripture to show that Jesus was talking to Satan or that Peter was possessed.
That's the belief of the vast majority of 2 billion Christians, and of 2000 years of Christian theology.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes, he was saying it for Peter's benefit and those that were there. And everyone else who would read it.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: FlyersFan
Yes, he was saying it for Peter's benefit and those that were there. And everyone else who would read it.

Exactly. It was a teaching moment for Peter, and for those who were there.
Christ wasn't saying Peter was possessed and no exorcism took place.
The FULL TEXT shows this clearly.