Could Peter have done otherwise?

[Derf]

Okay, I’ll play. Taking into consideration the context of 2 Peter 3 (the whole letter, actually), who is the “us-ward” he talking about?

I would assume he's talking about christians. And if it includes those who are not yet christians, then, if God is in total control of them and when they decide to believe, then why does He need to wait? If He does need to wait, then He's not in total control.

 

[Hammster]

I would assume he's talking about christians. And if it includes those who are not yet christians, then, if God is in total control of them and when they decide to believe, then why does He need to wait? If He does need to wait, then He's not in total control.

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
— 2 Peter 1:1

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
— 2 Peter 3:1

That’s just sample. Look at how many times he uses you and us. So yes, he’s talking about Christians.

As to you question, the argument Peter was addressing was that Jesus was slow in His return. Peter was saying that He’s not slow, but patient because not all OT His people had come to repentance yet. That would include you and me.

 

[peter2]

Why is anything tempting? Isn't it because we don't thing we'll get it soon enough in the right form? "Soon enough" could mean before we die. For instance, fornication (sex before marriage, especially) is tempting because we might not be able to get married and we want to have sex before...death comes.

Why, I fully agree. And it's precisely our belief and hope that death is not the last step in our lives that makes us able to accept the frustration. Our hope in life after death makes it possible to wait for having sex, since it was your example.

I don't get what you mean. Resurrection should be a relief from any fear of death.

It's what i meant. It's likely my use of english tongue which is not a proper one. Sorry

Yes, because it is no longer something to fear

Yes that's it

The ones who don't repent, surely. Are you thinking Herod was being weaned of sin? I don't see it in anything I've read about him

Yes, The one who don't repent.
I think Herod was weaned of the sin against Jesus, but not against the innocent babies, since he did ordain the massacre, which was the consequence of his wrath - this wrath - that came from the wise men's deception as they departed fron Bethleem without reporting him where was Jesus

Now I'm confused again. I thought weaning from sin is a good thing, not evil

You're right, weaning from sin is an evil.
But it hurts, which is painful.
In that sense, it's a little of an evil as well

My point is that the prophecy of Rachel weapons for her children is so unspecific in its content that it could easily have been not fulfilled in Herod's time, and we wouldn't have missed it or thought of it as an unfulfilled prophecy.

I don't understand what you mean (Rachel weapons (?) for her children).
I'd just say a prophecy mentionned in the Scriptures is worth being so, in my opinion, with the link set by this Scripture.

Then I don't understand your point. "Sin" isn't an entity, though it is embodied often by Satan. Satan losing Herod's soul sounds like a good thing to me.

Gn 4, 7 speaks of sin. seems to me like an entity.
As for the lost of Herod's soul, i think Jesus doesn't require any judgement from us about his fate. I think he'd rather want christians to pray for his soul

 

[Derf]

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
— 2 Peter 1:1

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
— 2 Peter 3:1

That’s just sample. Look at how many times he uses you and us. So yes, he’s talking about Christians.

As to you question, the argument Peter was addressing was that Jesus was slow in His return. Peter was saying that He’s not slow, but patient because not all OT His people had come to repentance yet. That would include you and me.

They (the ones He's waiting for) are His people? And they haven't come to repentance yet? But aren't His people the ones that are repentant? Now you're saying, if I understand you correctly, that you can be unrepentant and still be one of God's people?

 

[Derf]

Why, I fully agree. And it's precisely our belief and hope that death is not the last step in our lives that makes us able to accept the frustration. Our hope in life after death makes it possible to wait for having sex, since it was your example.

Yes! For sure.

It's what i meant. It's likely my use of english tongue which is not a proper one. Sorry

No problem, you're doing well. But I'll try to ask for clarification when I don't get the sense of your words.

Yes that's it

Yes, The one who don't repent.
I think Herod was weaned of the sin against Jesus,

I don't think he was, except by death. But I can't say what his final thoughts were.

ot against the innocent babies, since he did ordain the massacre, which was the consequence of his wrath - this wrath - that came from the wise men's deception as they departed fron Bethleem without reporting him where was Jesus

It wasn't deception, in my mind, since they were obeying God in choosing to disobey an evil order of the king.

You're right, weaning from sin is [not] an evil.
But it hurts, which is painful.
In that sense, it's a little of an evil as well

Maybe a different use of the word "evil".

I don't understand what you mean (Rachel weapons (?) for her children).

Sorry...spell check messed it up. Rachel WEEPING for her children.

I'd just say a prophecy mentionned in the Scriptures is worth being so, in my opinion, with the link set by this Scripture.

Yes, but is it a true prophecy in that way? Rachel birthed Joseph and Benjamin. But Bethlehem was the home of Judah's descendants, like David. Benjamin's territory was close by, though, so I'm not sure.

Gn 4, 7 speaks of sin. seems to me like an entity.
As for the lost of Herod's soul, i think Jesus doesn't require any judgement from us about his fate. I think he'd rather want christians to pray for his soul

Much of the Bible seems to speak of the victims looking forward to God's justice. Yes, Christians should also be merciful, but not beyond God's on standard of mercy, which appears to require repentance. I don't think Herod repented. And if God doesn't want him, should we? At best, I'd say "God's will be done."

 

[Hammster]

They (the ones He's waiting for) are His people? And they haven't come to repentance yet? But aren't His people the ones that are repentant? Now you're saying, if I understand you correctly, that you can be unrepentant and still be one of God's people?

Every one of His people has been unrepentant at one point. Then they repent.

 

[Derf]

Every one of His people has been unrepentant at one point. Then they repent.

But you say they are still His people who have never professed faith in Christ?

 

[Hammster]

But you say they are still His people who have never professed faith in Christ?

Yes. His sheep. He came for the lost sheep of Israel, and said He had other sheep not in that fold (us Gentiles). His sheep (not goats) know His voice and follow.

 

[Derf]

Yes. His sheep. He came for the lost sheep of Israel, and said He had other sheep not in that fold (us Gentiles). His sheep (not goats) know His voice and follow.

Then you agree that God chooses who will sin and never repent, and who will sin and repent. For those in the first group, they sin because God wants them to and does not want them to repent, right? Thus, God both wants sinners to sin and also punishes them for doing what He wanted them to do all along.

Isn't that kind of like Jesus casting out demons by Beelzebub, a kingdom divided against itself?

 

[Hammster]

Then you agree that God chooses who will sin and never repent, and who will sin and repent.

No.

For those in the first group, they sin because God wants them to and does not want them to repent, right?

No.

Thus, God both wants sinners to sin and also punishes them for doing what He wanted them to do all along.

No

Isn't that kind of like Jesus casting out demons by Beelzebub, a kingdom divided against itself?

No.

 

[peter2]

Yes! For sure.

OK

No problem, you're doing well. But I'll try to ask for clarification when I don't get the sense of your words.

You're welcome

I don't think he was, except by death. But I can't say what his final thoughts were.

You're right. May be his wrath either even didn't stop with his massacre.

It wasn't deception, in my mind, since they were obeying God in choosing to disobey an evil order of the king.

The real deception came from Herod, asking the wise men for their informing him. Actually, i checked Scripture doesn't use the word deception, but It' written that he was mocked by them.

Maybe a different use of the word "evil"

Yes pain and evil are the same word in french

Yes, but is it a true prophecy in that way? Rachel birthed Joseph and Benjamin. But Bethlehem was the home of Judah's descendants, like David. Benjamin's territory was close by, though, so I'm not sure.

I don't know whether it's worthy to be called a prophecy. All i know is Mt 2, 17 does link both Jeremiah's saying and the massacre

Much of the Bible seems to speak of the victims looking forward to God's justice. Yes, Christians should also be merciful, but not beyond God's on standard of mercy, which appears to require repentance. I don't think Herod repented. And if God doesn't want him, should we? At best, I'd say "God's will be done."

I'm not sure. May be is it my catholic background. The ND of Fatima's prayer beckons catholics to pray for the purgatory's souls

 

[Derf]

OK

You're welcome

You're right. May be his wrath either even didn't stop with his massacre.

His wrath? If about the Wisemen avoiding him, that's hardly worth such killing. I'd say it is more about losing power to the newborn king, which would only go away if he felt the newborn were dead, in which case the wrath belongs rightfully to God.

The real deception came from Herod, asking the wise men for their informing him.

Agreed.

Actually, i checked Scripture doesn't use the word deception, but It' written that he was mocked by them.

Meaning that they were not as afraid of him as they were of the angels telling them to go home a different way.

Yes pain and evil are the same word in french

I don't know whether it's worthy to be called a prophecy. All i know is Mt 2, 17 does link both Jeremiah's saying and the massacre

I'm not sure. May be is it my catholic background. The ND of Fatima's prayer beckons catholics to pray for the purgatory's souls

I'm not a big fan of adding to the commands of scripture through children having visions of someone claiming to be Jesus' mother.

 

[peter2]

His wrath? If about the Wisemen avoiding him, that's hardly worth such killing. I'd say it is more about losing power to the newborn king, which would only go away if he felt the newborn were dead, in which case the wrath belongs rightfully to God.

Actually, i don't feel a big difference between your saying and mine. Jesus life was spared, thanks to the wisemen' s avoiding Herod

Meaning that they were not as afraid of him as they were of the angels telling them to go home a different way.

Yes

I'm not a big fan of adding to the commands of scripture through children having visions of someone claiming to be Jesus' mother.

I understand and accept your point.
i agree subsequently to admit justice wouldn't be fulfilled, were Herod in Paradise instead of elsewhere. Thus, i 'd answer you, may be while you say

Yes, Christians should also be merciful, but not beyond God's on standard of mercy, which appears to require repentance. I don't think Herod repented

i hardly can stop from thinking you're using your own estimation of Herod's repenting or not, for considering whether or not applying mercy. What if Herod repented at the end of his life like the malefactor did on the cross ? I mean : How do you know God's standard of mercy ? Didn't Jesus die for Herod as well ?

 

[Derf]

Actually, i don't feel a big difference between your saying and mine. Jesus life was spared, thanks to the wisemen' s avoiding Herod

Yes

I understand and accept your point.
i agree subsequently to admit justice wouldn't be fulfilled, were Herod in Paradise instead of elsewhere. Thus, i 'd answer you, may be while you say

Ok.

i hardly can stop from thinking you're using your own estimation of Herod's repenting or not, for considering whether or not applying mercy. What if Herod repented at the end of his life like the malefactor did on the cross ? I mean : How do you know God's standard of mercy ? Didn't Jesus die for Herod as well ?

But we know about the 1 malefactor, because the bible records it. And we assume the other malefactor did not repent for the same reason.

 

[peter2]

But we know about the 1 malefactor, because the bible records it.

Yes, and the Bible doesn't give any record about Herod's repenting or not

 

[Derf]

No.

No.

No

No.

So you're saying, with that last "No", that if God both wants people to sin and doesn't want people to sin, it is ok, since you've affirmed that it is not like casting out demons by Beelzebub. Ok, it's good to know where you stand.

 

[Hammster]

So you're saying, with that last "No", that if God both wants people to sin and doesn't want people to sin, it is ok, since you've affirmed that it is not like casting out demons by Beelzebub. Ok, it's good to know where you stand.

Do you understand that God wanted people to sin in order to have His Son crucified?

 

[Yarddog]

Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.
— Matthew 26:33-35

Could Peter have stuck to his guns and shown Jesus that He was wrong?

No, Peter needed to be humbled. Jesus knew Peter far better than Peter knew himself and he needed to be shown the truth.

 

[Hammster]

No, Peter needed to be humbled. Jesus knew Peter far better than Peter knew himself and he needed to be shown the truth.

So no free will?

 

[Yarddog]

So no free will?

As I said, Jesus knew Peter better than he knew himself. Peter had too much pride in himself. Placing him in a situation where he would see the truth was beneficial to Peter.