If Peter saw Miracles, why denied Jesus 3 times?

[InvestigateTruth]

If Peter had indeed seen so many Miracles and had recognized Him as the Messiah, does it really make sense he denied Jesus 3 times?

If you were instead of Peter, do you think that you would have denied Him also, if you had seen all those Miracles?

• how do you know?

Matthew 26:34​

ESVJesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."




----‐------------------
Peter knew that Jesus of Nazareth was more than a mere man, for he saw Him give sight to the blind, cleanse the leper, cause the lame to walk, and raise the dead (see Matthew 11:4–5; see also John 2:11; 10:25; 20:30–31).


Now, not only Peter had seen so many Miracles of Jesus, but also:

Peter witnessed the appearance of Moses and Elijah during the event known as the Transfiguration of Jesus. This event is described in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36).


How could possibly someone who had witnessed so many extraordinary events, did not have enough faith in God or Christ?

 

[dybmh]

If Peter had indeed seen so many Miracles and had recognized Him as the Messiah, does it really make sense he denied Jesus 3 times?

Yes. Miracle workers were common at that time. Working wonders is not how the future king will be identified. I think you'll see this same idea expressed in the gospels. It is certainly expressed in Deut 13.

​

1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.​

2 If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,​

3 and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"​

4 you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.​

Notice, working wonders, making miracles, are meaningless. In fact it could be that working wonders ( including producing "good fruit" ) are nothing more than illusions or a test from the All-Mighty.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes. Miracle workers were common at that time. Working wonders is not how the future king will be identified. I think you'll see this same idea expressed in the gospels. It is certainly expressed in Deut 13.

​

1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.​

2 If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,​

3 and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"​

4 you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.​

Notice, working wonders, making miracles, are meaningless. In fact it could be that working wonders ( including producing "good fruit" ) are nothing more than illusions or a test from the All-Mighty.

Then on what basis Peter eventually was willing to be Martyred?
Was not Peter able to do Miracles himself?

 

[dybmh]

Disclaimer: I do not have the Christian bible memorized. These answers are to the best of my recollection. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Thank you.

Then on what basis Peter eventually was willing to be Martyred?

Pentecost as described in Acts of the Apostles.

Was not Peter able to do Miracles himself?

Why do you ask? It shouldn't matter. The events at Pentecost witnessed by Peter are what convinced him, not the miracles that any individual performed.

The events matched scripture literally and without any doubt. This will, naturally, trouble you. It is in opposition to Bahai doctrine.

 

[Sir Joseph]

If Peter had indeed seen so many Miracles and had recognized Him as the Messiah, does it really make sense he denied Jesus 3 times?

If you were instead of Peter, do you think that you would have denied Him also, if you had seen all those Miracles?

• how do you know?

Matthew 26:34​

ESVJesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."




----‐------------------
Peter knew that Jesus of Nazareth was more than a mere man, for he saw Him give sight to the blind, cleanse the leper, cause the lame to walk, and raise the dead (see Matthew 11:4–5; see also John 2:11; 10:25; 20:30–31).


Now, not only Peter had seen so many Miracles of Jesus, but also:

Peter witnessed the appearance of Moses and Elijah during the event known as the Transfiguration of Jesus. This event is described in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36).


How could possibly someone who had witnessed so many extraordinary events, did not have enough faith in God or Christ?

Allow me to jump in with my Christian perspective, tuned up lately thanks to an excellent Gospel of Mark study series I'm watching from Mike Winger.

First, it wasn't Pentecost that transformed the confused, cowardly apostles into bold preachers willing to face suffering, hardships, and death. It was Jesus' resurrection from the grave. It was only then they understood that the promised Messiah was not coming to overthrow Rome and establish an earthly kingdom to rule, but was coming as a sacrificial lamb to die for the sins of the world. Consider John, his own brother that rejected him as a living prophet and miracle worker, but became a believer only upon seeing Jesus' physical resurrection.

Second, it's easy for us to question the actions of Peter, as well as the repeated rebellion of the Israelites against God despite their witnessing of incredible miracles. Remember though that the Bible is full of seriously flawed individuals being chosen by God as prominent leaders - Job, Moses, and David being just 3 prime examples. Perhaps God does this on purpose, to set an example for us that great things are done by God, not by the efforts from great people.

In any case, I question the stupidity myself of the apostles not grasping Jesus' God/man nature and purpose for coming into the world. After all, the Old Testament scriptures themselves prophesied his coming and purpose, along with Jesus's own words. But, they didn't have the historical hindsight we now have, nor the years' accumulation of writings, sermons, and doctrinal development that we're all privy to now.

 

[mangalavara]

How could possibly someone who had witnessed so many extraordinary events, did not have enough faith in God or Christ?

Looking at the account in the synoptic gospels, nothing explicitly says why Peter denied Jesus while Jesus was being accused and questioned. Considering that Peter was in the courtyard while Jesus was in the house, he might have heard what was occurring: the accusations, the yelling, and the violence. Peter might have become very afraid for his safety in reaction to all of that. So, when some individuals told him that they recognized him, he cursed and even solemnly promised that he did not know Jesus. Denying Jesus then was not so much a lack of faith (as in belief) as it was a lack of faithfulness. Peter lost heart and did not want to suffer on account of being a follower of Jesus. This is what I think.

 

[Betho_br]

If Peter had indeed seen so many Miracles and had recognized Him as the Messiah, does it really make sense he denied Jesus 3 times?

If you were instead of Peter, do you think that you would have denied Him also, if you had seen all those Miracles?

• how do you know?

Matthew 26:34​

ESVJesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."




----‐------------------
Peter knew that Jesus of Nazareth was more than a mere man, for he saw Him give sight to the blind, cleanse the leper, cause the lame to walk, and raise the dead (see Matthew 11:4–5; see also John 2:11; 10:25; 20:30–31).


Now, not only Peter had seen so many Miracles of Jesus, but also:

Peter witnessed the appearance of Moses and Elijah during the event known as the Transfiguration of Jesus. This event is described in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36).


How could possibly someone who had witnessed so many extraordinary events, did not have enough faith in God or Christ?

Peter said he would lay down his life for Jesus (John 13:37), yet he ended up denying Jesus three times and weeping bitterly because of it (Matthew 26:75).

1. "Get behind me, Satan":
Matthew 16:23

2. Sinking in the sea:
- Matthew 14:29-31

3. Peter's denials:
- Matthew 26:69-75

It is to this Peter, transformed by his experience, that Jesus asks
John 21:15-17 King James Version

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest [agape] thou me more than these?
He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love [phileo] thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest [agape] thou me?
He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love [phileo] thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest [phileo] thou me?
Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest [phileo] thou me?
And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love [phileo] thee.
Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


Peter had a clear understanding of his own nature when Jesus asked him if he loved Him more than the other disciples. Peter admitted that his love was limited and imperfect. However, with the third question, Jesus reminded Peter that the love of all the disciples was also imperfect and limited. Thus, Jesus not only recalled that Peter had denied Him, despite having vowed to die with Him, but also questioned whether, among all the betrayals He suffered — as all had abandoned and fled (Mark 14:50) — Peter would still be the best among them.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Allow me to jump in with my Christian perspective, tuned up lately thanks to an excellent Gospel of Mark study series I'm watching from Mike Winger.

First, it wasn't Pentecost that transformed the confused, cowardly apostles into bold preachers willing to face suffering, hardships, and death. It was Jesus' resurrection from the grave. It was only then they understood that the promised Messiah was not coming to overthrow Rome and establish an earthly kingdom to rule, but was coming as a sacrificial lamb to die for the sins of the world. Consider John, his own brother that rejected him as a living prophet and miracle worker, but became a believer only upon seeing Jesus' physical resurrection.

Second, it's easy for us to question the actions of Peter, as well as the repeated rebellion of the Israelites against God despite their witnessing of incredible miracles. Remember though that the Bible is full of seriously flawed individuals being chosen by God as prominent leaders - Job, Moses, and David being just 3 prime examples. Perhaps God does this on purpose, to set an example for us that great things are done by God, not by the efforts from great people.

In any case, I question the stupidity myself of the apostles not grasping Jesus' God/man nature and purpose for coming into the world. After all, the Old Testament scriptures themselves prophesied his coming and purpose, along with Jesus's own words. But, they didn't have the historical hindsight we now have, nor the years' accumulation of writings, sermons, and doctrinal development that we're all privy to now.

But Peter had seen Jesus can resurrect the Dead. He had seen Jesus glorified body in the Transfiguration event. He heard the voice of God, saying this is His son. He had seen in truth that Moses and Elijah were alive.
If one sees all these things, would not he feel certain that God is with them? Why then he feard and denied Jesus?

I mean, later, there were Christians than did not see Jesus or any of His miracles and yet were willing to die for their faith.

Doesn't something feel fishy to you in the whole story?

 

[Link]

People doubt miracles when they see them. Their minds thinks of all fiction they read about sorcery and think it's possible they are sorcerers. Some think it might be Aliens/Spirits that are not genuinely from God trying to control humans as was the case of Pharaoh with Moses (a).

Even today, you have people who believe Jesus (a) and Mohammad (s) did miracles, but that they were sorcerers. I went to a New Age worship place, that this was the case of some of the people there.

Actually, accepting miracles, you have to subdue your imagination and lust of escaping it by claiming sorcery (with unknown), with reason and light, and make it accept it logically as a proof of the power of God vested in the human.

It's actually much easier said then done. Even Moses (a) ran away at first when his stick changed to a snake. The escape route is easier.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

People doubt miracles when they see them. Their minds thinks of all fiction they read about sorcery and think it's possible they are sorcerers. Some think it might be Aliens/Spirits that are not genuinely from God trying to control humans as was the case of Pharaoh with Moses (a).

Even today, you have people who believe Jesus (a) and Mohammad (s) did miracles, but that they were sorcerers. I went to a New Age worship place, that this was the case of some of the people there.

Actually, accepting miracles, you have to subdue your imagination and lust of escaping it by claiming sorcery (with unknown), with reason and light, and make it accept it logically as a proof of the power of God vested in the human.

It's actually much easier said then done. Even Moses (a) ran away at first when his stick changed to a snake. The escape route is easier.

But the Bible does not say, Peter thought it was sorcery.


Anyways, assuming it was really performed, How do you know it was not actualy sorcery?
How do you know a good sorcer cannot create such illusions and magic?

How do you distinguish between sorcery and a true Miracle from God?

 

[HonestJoe]

If Peter had indeed seen so many Miracles and had recognized Him as the Messiah, does it really make sense he denied Jesus 3 times?

Maybe because the rule of three has long been recognised as an effective literary trope?

 

[Sir Joseph]

But Peter had seen Jesus can resurrect the Dead. He had seen Jesus glorified body in the Transfiguration event. He heard the voice of God, saying this is His son. He had seen in truth that Moses and Elijah were alive.
If one sees all these things, would not he feel certain that God is with them? Why then he feard and denied Jesus?

I mean, later, there were Christians than did not see Jesus or any of His miracles and yet were willing to die for their faith.

Doesn't something feel fishy to you in the whole story?

As you say, the Bible doesn't tell us why Peter denied Jesus at this time, so we can only speculate. I think you already answered the question reasonably well though. It was likely a lack of faithfulness (rather than faith) out of fear for his life.

Personally, I know with complete confidence in my heart that the Christian faith is the only one true religion. I can't imagine anything ever changing that because I've assessed the evidence and have an intellectual affirmation of my heart's feelings. However, upon fear of torture, pain, or gruesome death, God forgive me for what may come out of my mouth to save me from the moment. I know I've lied to get out of lesser unpleasant situations.

I wouldn't over think the situation as something fishy going on when we have a reasonable, contextually consistent, potential explanation.

 

[Tomef]

If Peter had indeed seen so many Miracles and had recognized Him as the Messiah, does it really make sense he denied Jesus 3 times?

If you were instead of Peter, do you think that you would have denied Him also, if you had seen all those Miracles?

• how do you know?

Matthew 26:34​

ESVJesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."




----‐------------------
Peter knew that Jesus of Nazareth was more than a mere man, for he saw Him give sight to the blind, cleanse the leper, cause the lame to walk, and raise the dead (see Matthew 11:4–5; see also John 2:11; 10:25; 20:30–31).


Now, not only Peter had seen so many Miracles of Jesus, but also:

Peter witnessed the appearance of Moses and Elijah during the event known as the Transfiguration of Jesus. This event is described in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36).


How could possibly someone who had witnessed so many extraordinary events, did not have enough faith in God or Christ?

He didn't want to be tortured and killed.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

As you say, the Bible doesn't tell us why Peter denied Jesus at this time, so we can only speculate. I think you already answered the question reasonably well though. It was likely a lack of faithfulness (rather than faith) out of fear for his life.

Personally, I know with complete confidence in my heart that the Christian faith is the only one true religion. I can't imagine anything ever changing that because I've assessed the evidence and have an intellectual affirmation of my heart's feelings. However, upon fear of torture, pain, or gruesome death, God forgive me for what may come out of my mouth to save me from the moment. I know I've lied to get out of lesser unpleasant situations.

I wouldn't over think the situation as something fishy going on when we have a reasonable, contextually consistent, potential explanation.

So, did Jesus cure the blind, or it means He cured spiritual blindness?
Maybe those Miracles have a spiritual meaning. Maybe there wasn't any physical Miracles?
Maybe Jesus called them Miracles because in His eyes no body else could have opened their eyes to the truth.
Maybe, scriptures speaking in Parables when it says, Jesus resurrected the Lazarus?

 

[jimb]

If Peter had indeed seen so many Miracles and had recognized Him as the Messiah, does it really make sense he denied Jesus 3 times?

If you were instead of Peter, do you think that you would have denied Him also, if you had seen all those Miracles?

• how do you know?

Matthew 26:34​

ESVJesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."




----‐------------------
Peter knew that Jesus of Nazareth was more than a mere man, for he saw Him give sight to the blind, cleanse the leper, cause the lame to walk, and raise the dead (see Matthew 11:4–5; see also John 2:11; 10:25; 20:30–31).


Now, not only Peter had seen so many Miracles of Jesus, but also:

Peter witnessed the appearance of Moses and Elijah during the event known as the Transfiguration of Jesus. This event is described in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36).


How could possibly someone who had witnessed so many extraordinary events, did not have enough faith in God or Christ?

Because he was a human being, therefore flawed. Jesus was the only perfect human being. Everyone else was, is, and will be imperfect.

 

[jimb]

But Peter had seen Jesus can resurrect the Dead. He had seen Jesus glorified body in the Transfiguration event. He heard the voice of God, saying this is His son. He had seen in truth that Moses and Elijah were alive.
If one sees all these things, would not he feel certain that God is with them? Why then he feard and denied Jesus?

I mean, later, there were Christians than did not see Jesus or any of His miracles and yet were willing to die for their faith.

Doesn't something feel fishy to you in the whole story?

No, there is nothing "fishy" in the whole story. Peter was a flawed human being, as was/is everyone except Jesus.

 

[jimb]

He didn't want to be tortured and killed.

Even though he was later tortured and killed.

 

[jimb]

So, did Jesus cure the blind, or it means He cured spiritual blindness?
Maybe those Miracles have a spiritual meaning. Maybe there wasn't any physical Miracles?
Maybe Jesus called them Miracles because in His eyes no body else could have opened their eyes to the truth.
Maybe, scriptures speaking in Parables when it says, Jesus resurrected the Lazarus?

LOL! Are you serious?

a) Jesus cured the (physically) blind
b) The Bible clearly states that the miracles that Jesus performed were physical miracles.
c) Statement #3 is both off-topic and wrong.
d) Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus was most definitely not a parable, it actually happened.
John 11:13, "Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep."
John 11:21, "“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died."
John 11:32, "When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."
John 11:33-34, "When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.” "

 

[Tomef]

Even though he was later tortured and killed.

Sure, I’m just saying, it’s quite natural to want to avoid that, especially as he didn’t really have much of a clue what was going on at the time.

 

[Sir Joseph]

So, did Jesus cure the blind, or it means He cured spiritual blindness?
Maybe those Miracles have a spiritual meaning. Maybe there wasn't any physical Miracles?
Maybe Jesus called them Miracles because in His eyes no body else could have opened their eyes to the truth.
Maybe, scriptures speaking in Parables when it says, Jesus resurrected the Lazarus?

Jimb touches on a few specific, scriptural examples showing how context mandates Jesus' miracles be physically literal, not spiritual. I would add a comment along those lines quite applicable to today's Bible interpretation in general.

Today's liberal scholars and skeptics often discount anything supernatural from the Bible by interpreting controversial scriptures allegorically rather than literal. This is most often done for the amazing events of Genesis and for prophesies detailed throughout the Bible past and future. This undermines the Bible of course and opens up the door for any objectionable passage to be dismissed by anyone. More significantly, it allows one to discredit the entire Christian faith and Gospel message. After all, if Genesis isn't literal history which has substantial scientific evidence to support it, why should anyone believe the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus which defies all natural science as we know it?

As I grow in my Christian faith and apologetic knowledge, I've come to appreciate the authority of the Bible based upon manuscript authority, textual criticism, historical support, archaeological evidence, scientific foresight, and (particularly) fulfilled prophesy. I have compelling reasons to believe it's Divinely inspired and infallibly written. Once one accepts this reality, the existence of supernatural beings or events is not objectionable; thus, there's no reason to automatically reject them (as modern day science does now by excluding any supernatural event as unscientific and impossible).

Once one understands and appreciates the Bible's authority as Divinely inspired, the rule for interpreting it then becomes like any other document that contains a mixture of poetry, praise, and historical accounts. Let context and literary style dictate the interpretation between literal/physical versus allegory/spiritual.

Those who allegorize the Genesis accounts, Jesus' miracles, and other supernatural events of the Bible generally ignore both context and literary style in order to favor a bias. An unbiased, fair reading of the text usually distinguishes between the poetry we read in many books of the Bible versus its detailed historical accounts.

In summary, the Bible should be interpreted literally except in those cases where the context or style dictates otherwise - not a bias to do so. To this point, the controversial Geneses accounts, Jesus' virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection are clearly historical accounts to be taken literally.