Losing Faith

[Christian Mormon]

I thought that the new testament accounts told of apostles losing faith during the trial and crucifixion .....but I can't find the account(s)

Plz help...thx

[LeSellers]

I thought that the new testament accounts told of apostles losing faith during the trial and crucifixion .....but I can't find the account(s)

The fact that almost none of them were there during the trial,and that Peter denied knowing Christ (he did not "deny Him", as is commonly stated), and that we know of only one of them (John) who was at the Cross, I'd say hat the conclusion that the twelve (or eleven) were somewhat reduced in their faith at that point. But that's just my observation.

Lehi

[Palerider]

The fact that almost none of them were there during the trial,and that Peter denied knowing Christ (he did not "deny Him", as is commonly stated), and that we know of only one of them (John) who was at the Cross, I'd say hat the conclusion that the twelve (or eleven) were somewhat reduced in their faith at that point. But that's just my observation.

Lehi

I'll be taking the Savior's word on this one:

34" Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

I wouldn't blame someone for attempting to mitigate Peter's denial however. It seems like such a failure of character on the face of it. Other factors involved do make it more palatable though.

[Alla]

I'll be taking the Savior's word on this one:

34" Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

I wouldn't blame someone for attempting to mitigate Peter's denial however. It seems like such a failure of character on the face of it. Other factors involved do make it more palatable though.

May be Peter denied Christ because Jesus told him to not to follow Him. Jesus needed Peter live not dead. Peter still had to finish his mission on earth and do what Jesus told him to do:"FEED MY SHEEP". From other account Peter doesn't look like coward person.

Jesus is a God and He commands elements and animals and they obey Him. And he know future events. May be Jesus told Peter that Peter will have to deny Him so people will not kill Peter, too. And He gave Him a sign. Peter knew that when he hears rooster and he will deny Jesus three times then it is time for Jesus to die and that Peter's time is still to live and do his mission. When he heard the rooster he went to cry because he felt bad that his Master has to suffer and there is nothing he can do.

By the way, this is not my idea. But I stick to it. I read about this in G.Lund's book "Kingdom and the glory"

[Palerider]

May be Peter denied Christ because Jesus told him to not to follow Him. Jesus needed Peter live not dead. Peter still had to finish his mission on earth and do what Jesus told him to do:"FEED MY SHEEP". From other account Peter doesn't look like coward person.

Jesus is a God and He commands elements and animals and they obey Him. And he know future events. May be Jesus told Peter that Peter will have to deny Him so people will not kill Peter, too. And He gave Him a sign. Peter knew that when he hears rooster and he will deny Jesus three times then it is time for Jesus to die and that Peter's time is still to live and do his mission. When he heard the rooster he went to cry because he felt bad that his Master has to suffer and there is nothing he can do.

By the way, this is not my idea. But I stick to it. I read about this in G.Lund's book "Kingdom and the glory"

Hey Alla,

I think you may have missed the point of the discussion. No one is saying that Peter didn't repent and later fulfill his responsiblities with complete conviction of the Savior's divinity and mission. The inclusion in the scriptures of his temporary faultering is an excellent example to all of us that we are human and sometimes we fail "in the clutch" so to speak. Thankfully repentance is always available when we do.

Also recognizing that Peter had not been endowed with the Holy Ghost as occurred at Pentacost is quite critical to the story. He never faultered (to my knowledge) afterword regarding the Savior and His role.

From Talmage, Jesus the Christ:

"Trembling in wretched realization of his perfidious cowardice, he turned from the crowd and met the gaze of the suffering Christ, who from the midst of the insolent mob looked into the face of His boastful, yet loving but weak apostle. Hastening from the palace, Peter went out into the night, weeping bitterly. As his later life attests, his tears were those of real contrition and true repentance......"

"Through the bestowal of the Holy Ghost the apostles had become changed men. As made clear to them by the Spirit of Truth, the scriptures constituted a record of preparation for the events to which they were special and ordained witnesses. Peter, who but a few weeks earlier had quailed before a serving-maid, now spoke openly, fearing none. Seeing once a lame beggar at the Gate Beautiful which led into the temple court, he took the afflicted one by the hand, saying: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

[LeSellers]

I'll be taking the Savior's word on this one:

34" Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

I wouldn't blame someone for attempting to mitigate Peter's denial however. It seems like such a failure of character on the face of it. Other factors involved do make it more palatable though.

We have the words of the gospel writers that say what happened that night.

56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. 70 But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.

71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. 72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. 74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the [rooster] crew. 75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the [rooster] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: 67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. 68 But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the [rooster] crew.

69 And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. 70 And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. 71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

72 And the second time the [rooster] crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the [rooster] crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. 56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. 57 And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.

58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not.

59 And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. 60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the [rooster] crew. 61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the [rooster] crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

18 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. 16 But Peter stood at the door without.

Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

...

25 And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.

26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? 27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the [rooster] crew.

I am not seeing where Peter denied Christ. He denied being His disciple, to be sure—he denied knowing Him. He denied even being a Galilean, but he did not deny Christ.

Lehi

[Palerider]

We have the words of the gospel writers that say what happened that night.

I am not seeing where Peter denied Christ. He denied being His disciple, to be sure—he denied knowing Him. He denied even being a Galilean, but he did not deny Christ.

Lehi

I think you are merely parsing words here. What Peter's denials meant to the Savior is what is important to me:

Again:

Matthew 26:3434 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

[LeSellers]

I think you are merely parsing words here.

Of course I'm "parsing words". You are, too. That's what studying the scriptures requires.

The prophecy of Jesus, that Peter would deny Him twice/thrice, does not mean that Peter would deny Him as Savior and Redeemer of the world. That much is obvious, to me, at least. And the reason it is obvious is just what did, in fact, happen. Peter did not deny His lordship: he denied his knowing Jesus.

The meaning of the phrase "deny Christ" is that he (Peter in this case) would reject Him.

Lehi

[Palerider]

Of course I'm "parsing words". You are, too. That's what studying the scriptures requires.

The prophecy of Jesus, that Peter would deny Him twice/thrice, does not mean that Peter would deny Him as Savior and Redeemer of the world. That much is obvious, to me, at least. And the reason it is obvious is just what did, in fact, happen. Peter did not deny His lordship: he denied his knowing Jesus.

The meaning of the phrase "deny Christ" is that he (Peter in this case) would reject Him.

Lehi

Well said,

"The meaning of the phrase "deny Christ" is that he (Peter in this case) would reject Him."

So, here's an analogy:

If, as a son your life was on the line and you needed help and your father appeared in the crowd and you looked at him and (in order to save his own skin) he said "Sorry, I don't know him." Would you consider that a "failure to recognize" or a "denial" of who you were and what your true relationship was to your father?

[LeSellers]

here's an analogy:

If, as a son your life was on the line and you needed help and your father appeared in the crowd and you looked at him and (in order to save his own skin) he said "Sorry, I don't know him." Would you consider that a "failure to recognize" or a "denial" of who you were and what your true relationship was to your father?

I reject your analogy and substitute my own.

Even though he followed Jesus to the palace, Peter was afraid of being associated with Him. There was the very real possibility of death. There was, further, nothing Peter could have done to change the outcome of the "trial".

It was as if two soldiers were behind enemy lines, and one was captured. The other one could come out of his camouflaged position, but his doing so would result only in his own capture.

Lehi

[Alla]

Hey Alla,

I think you may have missed the point of the discussion.

Thanks, I got it now. I will read more careful next time.

Also recognizing that Peter had not been endowed with the Holy Ghost as occurred at Pentacost is quite critical to the story. He never faultered (to my knowledge) afterword regarding the Savior and His role.

That is a very good point. I never thought about it. There is a big difference between what kind of person I was before I had gift of the Holy Ghost and after. When Holy Ghost teaches me there is strong desire to obey God's will. When sombody tells me "do this because God wants you to do it" and Spirit doesn't confirm that it is true it is very hard to have desire to obey God's will.

[Glenn101]

Hey Alla,

I think you may have missed the point of the discussion. No one is saying that Peter didn't repent and later fulfill his responsiblities with complete conviction of the Savior's divinity and mission. The inclusion in the scriptures of his temporary faultering is an excellent example to all of us that we are human and sometimes we fail "in the clutch" so to speak. Thankfully repentance is always available when we do.

Also recognizing that Peter had not been endowed with the Holy Ghost as occurred at Pentacost is quite critical to the story. He never faultered (to my knowledge) afterword regarding the Savior and His role.

From Talmage, Jesus the Christ:

"Trembling in wretched realization of his perfidious cowardice, he turned from the crowd and met the gaze of the suffering Christ, who from the midst of the insolent mob looked into the face of His boastful, yet loving but weak apostle. Hastening from the palace, Peter went out into the night, weeping bitterly. As his later life attests, his tears were those of real contrition and true repentance......"

"Through the bestowal of the Holy Ghost the apostles had become changed men. As made clear to them by the Spirit of Truth, the scriptures constituted a record of preparation for the events to which they were special and ordained witnesses. Peter, who but a few weeks earlier had quailed before a serving-maid, now spoke openly, fearing none. Seeing once a lame beggar at the Gate Beautiful which led into the temple court, he took the afflicted one by the hand, saying: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk."

What you are saying has merit. But Peter may have been remembering also this from the Savior

20 He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Peter answering said, The Christ of God.

21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

There were a lot of things that Peter did not understand at that time. But he is the only one attested to by the scriptures that even was close enough to the scene to be recognized as a follower and have the opportunity to deny knowing Christ. That did nothing to lessen his remorse when he remembered what the Christ had told him.

Glenn

[Palerider]

I reject your analogy and substitute my own.

Even though he followed Jesus to the palace, Peter was afraid of being associated with Him. There was the very real possibility of death. There was, further, nothing Peter could have done to change the outcome of the "trial".

It was as if two soldiers were behind enemy lines, and one was captured. The other one could come out of his camouflaged position, but his doing so would result only in his own capture.

Lehi

And here is why your analogy fails (I'm not just rejecting it without cause).

1. We're not talking about changing the outcome of the trial, we're talking about integrity....Peter's integrity. There is the distinct possibility that Peter might not have been prosecuted even if he had confessed. No one can say for sure one way or another.

2. To make your analogy true, we have to have Peter as well, being discovered by the enemy and asked point blank if he is on the opposing team, as in "aren't you an American as well? You sure sound like an American...." Wherein Peter states emphatically, "No I am not an American, I'm a German (World War II), and this after telling his combat buddy that he would follow him to the death and that if one of them died he would certainly not die alone.......

If you were among a very influential group of co-workers on a business trip and they decided to order in the drinks and a few call-girls and you decided to be "one of the boys" because rejecting their proposition would be career suicide, and one of them said, "Hey Lehi, aren't you a Mormon?", and you say "Hec, no". Would you not in a real sense be denying your faith?

[Palerider]

What you are saying has merit. But Peter may have been remembering also this from the Savior

There were a lot of things that Peter did not understand at that time. But he is the only one attested to by the scriptures that even was close enough to the scene to be recognized as a follower and have the opportunity to deny knowing Christ. That did nothing to lessen his remorse when he remembered what the Christ had told him.

Glenn

Slim possibility, but I think your point (if I understand it correctly) is overshadowed by the later conversation as it appears here:

31Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be ^aoffended because of me this night: for it is written, I will ^bsmite the ^cshepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.....

33Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be ^aoffended.....

.....35Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

The understanding here between Christ and Peter and the rest of the Apostles seems fairly clear to me if one reads the entire passage. (I have edited for brevity sake)

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

[Palerider]

accidental double post

[jo1952]

Slim possibility, but I think your point (if I understand it correctly) is overshadowed by the later conversation as it appears here:

31Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be ^aoffended because of me this night: for it is written, I will ^bsmite the ^cshepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.....

33Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be ^aoffended.....

.....35Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

The understanding here between Christ and Peter and the rest of the Apostles seems fairly clear to me if one reads the entire passage. (I have edited for brevity sake)

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

Perhaps you and LeSellers are talking past each other. I think Peter WAS afraid and "offended" by that fear, so he denied knowing Jesus the full three times which Jesus prophesied that he would. What Peter did NOT do was commit the unpardonable sin - denying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer, etc. - which is denying the greater witness of the Holy Ghost as to Jesus' True identity. To clarify, recall the teaching which Jesus gave Himself that we could blaspheme Him and Father without endangering our spirit to possible eternal damnation. Yet, to deny the Holy Ghost was a different matter altogether.

I believe you are discussing the denial of Jesus the man; whereas LeSellers is discussing the denial of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer. This confusion always arises with many non-LDS due to their different understanding of what denying the Holy Ghost looks like; which is the typical view of what orthodoxy teaches, versus what the LDS and non-orthodox Christians believe.

Regards,

jo

[Palerider]

Perhaps you and LeSellers are talking past each other. I think Peter WAS afraid and "offended" by that fear, so he denied knowing Jesus the full three times which Jesus prophesied that he would. What Peter did NOT do was commit the unpardonable sin - denying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer, etc. - which is denying the greater witness of the Holy Ghost as to Jesus' True identity. To clarify, recall the teaching which Jesus gave Himself that we could blaspheme Him and Father without endangering our spirit to possible eternal damnation. Yet, to deny the Holy Ghost was a different matter altogether.

I believe you are discussing the denial of Jesus the man; whereas LeSellers is discussing the denial of Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, our Savior and Redeemer. This confusion always arises with many non-LDS due to their different understanding of what denying the Holy Ghost looks like; which is the typical view of what orthodoxy teaches, versus what the LDS and non-orthodox Christians believe.

Regards,

jo

I am fully aware what the LDS doctrine is regarding denial of the Holy Ghost, and since Peter had yet to be completely endowed with the Holy Ghost it would have been impossible for him to have committed the unpardonable sin in denying the Savior at the time of His trial.

I'm sure there is some confusion regarding this with non-LDS but since I do not fall in that category I feel relatively secure in my footing here.

That being said, I don't believe that Peter was denying the Savior's Messiahship in his heart, but it was more than just a denial of knowing who Christ was as a man. It was also a denial (probably born of fear) of association, fellowship, and the ties that bind us together in times of need. It was a denial of friendship; even brotherhood if one might use that term. Some in the LDS church have gone on regarding Peter's unfailing boldness to do the right thing from that time froward, which I agree with regarding his testimony of the Savior.

And yet I find also that when the gospel was taken to the gentiles and He was seated and eating with them as described by Paul, he still removed himself from them as if they were unclean when the Jews arrived from Jerusalem, for which he was taken to task by Paul.

I say this not to disparage Peter by any means. I'm just saying he was human in a way much more closely to ourselves than some would want to give him credit for. Some always seem to want to mitigate where actually none is needed. Peter does fine for me just the way he is.

[jo1952]

I am fully aware what the LDS doctrine is regarding denial of the Holy Ghost, and since Peter had yet to be completely endowed with the Holy Ghost it would have been impossible for him to have committed the unpardonable sin in denying the Savior at the time of His trial.

I'm sure there is some confusion regarding this with non-LDS but since I do not fall in that category I feel relatively secure in my footing here.

That being said, I don't believe that Peter was denying the Savior's Messiahship in his heart, but it was more than just a denial of knowing who Christ was as a man. It was also a denial (probably born of fear) of association, fellowship, and the ties that bind us together in times of need. It was a denial of friendship; even brotherhood if one might use that term. Some in the LDS church have gone on regarding Peter's unfailing boldness to do the right thing from that time froward, which I agree with regarding his testimony of the Savior.

And yet I find also that when the gospel was taken to the gentiles and He was seated and eating with them as described by Paul, he still removed himself from them as if they were unclean when the Jews arrived from Jerusalem, for which he was taken to task by Paul.

I say this not to disparage Peter by any means. I'm just saying he was human in a way much more closely to ourselves than some would want to give him credit for. Some always seem to want to mitigate where actually none is needed. Peter does fine for me just the way he is.

As I said, I think perhaps the two of you are talking past each other. I see Peter with many human frailties as well. This actually gives me encouragement inasmuch as I find myself not always making the best choices - being very human. I think too often that members of all churches think that the Apostles and the Prophets became perfect once they were called to serve. They then make excuses for behavior which is questionable and choose to be blind to the human qualities men of God still possess.

I will take this thought a step further. Many non-LDS Christians believe that the men of the Bible were nigh unto perfect once called and will ignore evidence presented in the Bible that they were NOT perfect. However, when viewing the leaders of the LDS Church, they use a different standard by which to compare them. Then, they unfortunately judge them. For instance, wherein they might overlook or excuse away the faults of say Jonah or Moses, they expect perfection from the Latter-Day prophets of the LDS Church. And when our prophets fail to meet their standards, they dismiss them claiming they cannot be prophets at all. sigh...

When I try to point the differences in their standards out, I am accused of running prophets of the Bible under the bus; which, of course, is NOT what I am trying to do at all.

Regards,

jo

[Palerider]

As I said, I think perhaps the two of you are talking past each other. I see Peter with many human frailties as well. This actually gives me encouragement inasmuch as I find myself not always making the best choices - being very human. I think too often that members of all churches think that the Apostles and the Prophets became perfect once they were called to serve. They then make excuses for behavior which is questionable and choose to be blind to the human qualities men of God still possess.

I will take this thought a step further. Many non-LDS Christians believe that the men of the Bible were nigh unto perfect once called and will ignore evidence presented in the Bible that they were NOT perfect. However, when viewing the leaders of the LDS Church, they use a different standard by which to compare them. Then, they unfortunately judge them. For instance, wherein they might overlook or excuse away the faults of say Jonah or Moses, they expect perfection from the Latter-Day prophets of the LDS Church. And when our prophets fail to meet their standards, they dismiss them claiming they cannot be prophets at all. sigh...

When I try to point the differences in their standards out, I am accused of running prophets of the Bible under the bus; which, of course, is NOT what I am trying to do at all.

Regards,

jo

I agree. If one is going to take the position that someone was not a prophet of God there should be ample evidence to the contrary, both spiritual and factual. I have no problem there.

[MelvinCJohnson]

I agree. If one is going to take the position that someone was not a prophet of God there should be ample evidence to the contrary, both spiritual and factual. I have no problem there.

Not necessary if "ample evidence . . . both spiritual and factual" to the contrary exists. The proof is one on the 'prophet of God' and followers.