Peter walking on the water


Recommended Posts

Yesterday in Sunday School there was an interesting discussion about Luke 23:34 during which it was noted that at the time Peter denied Christ, only he, and none of the other apostles, were present during this time of great danger. He was physically closer to Christ than any of the other apostles at that moment, and he had exposed himself to significant risk to be so. 

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure this will draw some ire on the forum but I will first state that I am not real confident that the story of Peter walking on water is accurate enough to be concerned about enough to argue any points of the story.  I base my thoughts, first from historians of the time such as Josephus that claimed there was an effort to alter sacred scripture.  Secondly, is the fact that this particular story appears in amazing correlating detail to a number of pagan demigods walking on water.

 

Several posters on this forum have argued on many occasions that there are categories of truth and that some truths are much more important than others.  This being the case – I personally do not see what ever truths can be gleaned from this story to be of that great of value.  To me – walking on water is not so important at any level that I am willing to argue some point about it. 

 

Jesus chose Peter as his senior apostle.  How can I justify less confidence in Peter than expressed by Jesus?  Peter does not have to walk on water to prove or demonstrate anything of what I believe to be of value for me.  If – and the operative word here is “if” – this story is not true or even if it is – it does not change anything I believe – especially the confidence and faith I have in Christ to have chosen Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure this will draw some ire on the forum but I will first state that I am not real confident that the story of Peter walking on water is accurate enough to be concerned about enough to argue any points of the story.  I base my thoughts, first from historians of the time such as Josephus that claimed there was an effort to alter sacred scripture.  Secondly, is the fact that this particular story appears in amazing correlating detail to a number of pagan demigods walking on water.

 

Several posters on this forum have argued on many occasions that there are categories of truth and that some truths are much more important than others.  This being the case – I personally do not see what ever truths can be gleaned from this story to be of that great of value.  To me – walking on water is not so important at any level that I am willing to argue some point about it. 

 

Jesus chose Peter as his senior apostle.  How can I justify less confidence in Peter than expressed by Jesus?  Peter does not have to walk on water to prove or demonstrate anything of what I believe to be of value for me.  If – and the operative word here is “if” – this story is not true or even if it is – it does not change anything I believe – especially the confidence and faith I have in Christ to have chosen Peter.

So the scripture is false, and if it is not false, it is unimportant anyway? I think you need to reference some sources for such extreme claims and we can decide for ourselves. 

 

For me, it is important to understand how Peter grew in faith. If we misunderstand this story we may misunderstand how his faith matured later on. For instance, was he told to deny Christ three times, or was he weak? Was it his bold confidence that allowed him to walk on water and do we need to do the same? I do not count any stories about those who exercised such faith as unimportant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the scripture is false, and if it is not false, it is unimportant anyway? I think you need to reference some sources for such extreme claims and we can decide for ourselves.

I already referenced Josephus as a source that there was an effort by pagans to modify sacred and holy scripture during his day. The Book of Mormon also testifies that important and sacred truths have been altered in the Bible and that is why the Book of Mormon is necessary. As I stated before I do not know if Peter walking on water is true or not - I have not received personal revelation concerning this matter. It may be a flaw in my character. However I did reverence similar pagan sources. For specifics I will reverence the pagan demigod Baal walking on water – the stories are surprisingly similar. This would not be the first time that faith promoting rumors have been introduced into the lore of the saints.

In regards to growing in faith – I believe a most important factor is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Something Peter did not receive until after the resurrection of Christ. Trying to measure increases in faith without consideration of the gift of the Holy Ghost – I think to be somewhat superficial and an unprofitable effort. As I have stated, if Peter walking on water is true or if it is some kind of fabrication – it does not change anything concerning my understanding of the importance of the Holy Ghost and receiving conformation through him that Jesus is the Christ. Of that I have received confirmation. I have also received confirmation that what many attempts to account as failures in faith concerning the Apostle Peter – is not a profitable exercise. What some have referenced as rebukes for failure from the Messiah – I do not see at all but what I see is kind and loving encouragement to a dear and cherished friend of his. That is my understanding of Peter and his experiences with the Christ. What some have posted in this thread; I find of little value.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it very apropos.

There is a vocal subculture within (for now) the Church that is *far* more interested in the outward manifestations of power that faith can produce, than in the constancy of the faith itself.

 

Nobody was counseling Christ, which if they were, would be prideful/sinful/foolish. It is unfair and nonsensical in context to suggest that those who are posting on this thread are prideful/sinful/foolish. It breaks down conversation and is antagonistic in nature.

 

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure; and I don't always endorse the form of TFP's posts (as, I'm sure, he wouldn't mine).  But I think the substance was accurate.  A major point in the story--reiterated by the Lord Himself--is that Peter's faith, such as it was at that point in time, was insufficient. 

 

It is no insult to Peter to suggest that his faith did not spring forth in an instant, Athena-like, fully formed and armed for battle.  And I think to suggest that Peter's ability to walk on water means that everything was (spiritually speaking) fine and dandy with him at that moment, is positively dangerous--especially when Jesus Himself said otherwise, and especially when we here in the present live in an adulterous, sign-obsessed generation.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this chip-on-the-shoulder overreaction and implication that there was anything wrong with the form of my post ridiculous. It was a simple, innocent, question asked sincerely and with righteous intent.

 

Responding to it defensively was the unfair and nonsensical response, utterly pointless, and the catalyst for communications breaking down.

 

It was a perfectly reasonable question for consideration, and to respond to it with anything other than frank self reflection only proves the point and the obvious level of pride being applied to the topic. 

 

While I must admit, the accusation has gotten my ire up a bit, and I have some pride to repent of too in that regard, the initial question was perfectly valid and there was no call, whatsoever, to respond with sheer, direct, childish rudeness.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure; and I don't always endorse the form of TFP's posts (as, I'm sure, he wouldn't mine).  But I think the substance was accurate.  A major point in the story--reiterated by the Lord Himself--is that Peter's faith, such as it was at that point in time, was insufficient. 

 

It is no insult to Peter to suggest that his faith did not spring forth in an instant, Athena-like, fully formed and armed for battle.  And I think to suggest that Peter's ability to walk on water means that everything was (spiritually speaking) fine and dandy with him at that moment, is positively dangerous--especially when Jesus Himself said otherwise, and especially when we here in the present live in an adulterous, sign-obsessed generation.

 

I disagree with you that a major point in the story is that Peter's faith is insufficient. However, I don't disagree with Christ and I am not counseling Christ by virtue of the fact that I don't believe or agree that your opinion reflects what Christ was actually teaching or doing in this situation.

 

Did not Christ teach,

 

 

 

If ye had afaith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

 

or

 

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your aunbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have bfaith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this cmountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be dimpossible unto you.

 

Is having "a little faith" really a rebuke?

 

Also, I don't know if I would make the argument that spiritually speaking "everything was fine and dandy" with Peter. I don't believe that others in this thread have said that about Peter either. I don't even know what it means, really. Peter certainly wasn't perfect and he was a fallible man. But, he was no spiritual weakling at the time he walked on water.

 

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already referenced Josephus as a source that there was an effort by pagans to modify sacred and holy scripture during his day. The Book of Mormon also testifies that important and sacred truths have been altered in the Bible and that is why the Book of Mormon is necessary. As I stated before I do not know if Peter walking on water is true or not - I have not received personal revelation concerning this matter. It may be a flaw in my character. However I did reverence similar pagan sources. For specifics I will reverence the pagan demigod Baal walking on water – the stories are surprisingly similar. This would not be the first time that faith promoting rumors have been introduced into the lore of the saints.

In regards to growing in faith – I believe a most important factor is receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Something Peter did not receive until after the resurrection of Christ. Trying to measure increases in faith without consideration of the gift of the Holy Ghost – I think to be somewhat superficial and an unprofitable effort. As I have stated, if Peter walking on water is true or if it is some kind of fabrication – it does not change anything concerning my understanding of the importance of the Holy Ghost and receiving conformation through him that Jesus is the Christ. Of that I have received confirmation. I have also received confirmation that what many attempts to account as failures in faith concerning the Apostle Peter – is not a profitable exercise. What some have referenced as rebukes for failure from the Messiah – I do not see at all but what I see is kind and loving encouragement to a dear and cherished friend of his. That is my understanding of Peter and his experiences with the Christ. What some have posted in this thread; I find of little value.

 

I think that a close consideration of the questions of why Christ rebuked Peter when he had just showed great faith, and praised others for showing what seemed to be a smaller amount of faith, and why we focus more on Peter's apparent failure than his great success still has the potential to produce understanding that might be useful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to growing in faith – What some have referenced as rebukes for failure from the Messiah – I do not see at all but what I see is kind and loving encouragement to a dear and cherished friend of his. That is my understanding of Peter and his experiences with the Christ.

 

As far as I understand what you are saying, Traveler, I agree and it is along these lines that I feel the scripture should be read.

 

-Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with you that a major point in the story is that Peter's faith is insufficient.

 

At this point it seems we may be splitting hairs; but to me the lesson is clear:  With faith, one can do great things--but that faith must continue [and, I submit, mature and deepen], or else you sink.

 

I get the distinct impression that some participants to this thread are eminently bothered by the idea that a person can fall from grace even after having exercised sufficient faith to produce great miracles.  Am I misreading you folks?  If not--why is this idea so problematic for you?

 

 

However, I don't disagree with Christ and I am not counseling Christ by virtue of the fact that I don't believe or agree that your opinion reflects what Christ was actually teaching or doing in this situation.

 

To be clear--I am not the originator of the "counseling Christ" verbiage in this thread.

 

As for what Christ was actually teaching or doing?  Well, Matthew 14 has Him saying that Peter had "little faith" (and I agree with your exposition to the extent that having "little faith" per se may not be such a bad thing), but then asking "wherefore didst thou doubt?"

 

Is having "a little faith" really a rebuke?

 

In point of fact, it wasn't me who used the "R word", either.  Call it a rebuke, a reproof, or a course correction, or even praise.  But note that this statement was immediately followed by a probing question as to Peter's doubt.  That latter question, at least, was most certainly not a compliment. 

 

Also, I don't know if I would make the argument that spiritually speaking "everything was fine and dandy" with Peter. I don't believe that others in this thread have said that about Peter either. I don't even know what it means, really. Peter certainly wasn't perfect and he was a fallible man. But, he was no spiritual weakling at the time he walked on water.

 

Forgive me, but there seemed to be a subtext of "forget about Christ's discussion of Peter's doubt; the guy walked on water!!!"  It was that apparent concept to which I was responding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that a close consideration of the questions of why Christ rebuked Peter when he had just showed great faith, and praised others for showing what seemed to be a smaller amount of faith, and why we focus more on Peter's apparent failure than his great success still has the potential to produce understanding that might be useful. 

 

I think that it's pretty straight forward. If a new investigator comes to church one time in a month, that's awesome, right? If a long standing member starts only coming to church once a month that's not awesome, right? Would it not make sense that Christ might not praise the one and reprove the other?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not counseling Christ by virtue of the fact that I don't believe or agree that your opinion reflects what Christ was actually teaching or doing in this situation.

 

To be clear--I am not the originator of the "counseling Christ" verbiage in this thread.

 

It might be useful to point out here that the idea behind the "counseling Christ" verbiage stems from scripture. 

 

Jacob 4:10

Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.

 

I'm still a bit flummoxed as to how this verbiage can be considered offensive, particularly phrased as a question, particularly that no accusations were made, particularly that it was carefully phrased as "are we" to include my own considerations on the matter, and most particularly that the person acting as if accused hadn't even posted prior to the statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever might be said, if rebuke means "sharp disapproval or criticism", then the Savior was definitely not rebuking Peter.

 

I sense that Christ is telling Peter, "Peter, you had the faith to do it, you were doing good, why did you doubt?"

 

I think when we act on purely faith, keeping our thoughts and concerns centered on the Savior, we can overcome and do some wonderful things. I think Peter began to doubt because he started thinking about how crazy it was for him to believe that he could walk on water, especially with all the winds and waves going on!

 

Sometimes I think to myself how ridiculous it is for me to think that I can somehow overcome the many challenges I have in my life. Statistically I should be dead a long time ago. If I allow myself to believe that I am stuck with the conditions and limitations of mortality then I begin to doubt my ability to overcome the trials in my life that has been at least as hard to do as walking on water. I doubt when I let myself take my focus off of Christ. I doubt when a let myself think like a man.

 

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did the Savior rebuke Peter for his lack of faith after walking on freaking water?

Because Peter believed.

 

When the Savior says "All things are possible to him that believeth", most people think "Well, OK, so God can heal my kid." A few, like Martha, thought "OK, so God can bring back the dead." But not Peter. Peter thought "You mean that I can do ALL things???!!!"

 

The Lord will praise the minuscule faith of most people because that's all the faith they have. Peter already knew he could walk on water - by sinking, Peter was using FAR LESS faith than he possessed. There is no room in the Celestial Kingdom for spiritual under-achievers. Especially those called to be prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure me-too-ism would give one the qualifying power to actually walk on water for a bit. I'm quite sure not, actually. Which is part of the question methinks. Moreover, I'm not sure there's any indication of this in the scripture. Although possible, could you be reading something into it that may not be there?

We are always so quick to set such a high bar for achieving miracles. The Savior's "Grain of mustard seed" analogy, on the other hand, sets the bar pretty low. I suspect a great many latter-day saints (not all of whom are Mormon) have sufficient faith to literally command mountains, they just don't think they do because we have culturally set unattainable expectations for ourselves.

 

I think it very apropos.

There is a vocal subculture within (for now) the Church that is *far* more interested in the outward manifestations of power that faith can produce, than in the constancy of the faith itself.

Outward manifestations can be faked or rationalized, which is part of the problem with judging a person's faith (or one's own faith) by outward manifestations. However, true and constant faith cannot exist without outward manifestations. So it's fair to say that if you aren't experiencing outward manifestations - if you aren't performing Biblical miracles - then your faith is for naught. Me saying that will no doubt upset quite a few people. We are all too often afraid to confront what is lacking in our own faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that almost everything talk that references Peter walking on the water focusses on the lack of faith he showed by not continuing with his walk rather than the great faith he showed by starting his walk? Even Christ seemed to rebuke Peter for his lack of faith even though He praised others for showing a lesser amount of faith than what Peter showed, eg, by asking to be healed when they already knew that Christ could heal.

when you have god next to you in the picture it's a lot easier to see all of what you're lacking than what you have.

I think many miss that all the other apostles were rubbing their eyes in disbelief when thomas asked to see proof when christ appeared. I think he was the only one who had hte guts to say what they were thinking....

but a lesson to be learned is that often there is more to the story than just what you see (and take from it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there are saints outside of the "Mormon" circle. You are incorrect, my friend. Mormon legalism fails here.

 

-Finrock

 

This is not "Mormon legalism". It's the meaning of the term "latter-day saint".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, true and constant faith cannot exist without outward manifestations.

 

Even if this were true (and I highly question the use of the word "cannot" here), these "outward" manifestations could be the changing of someone's heart, the peace (and behavior stemming therefrom) that comes into the soul, good health, spiritual strength, mental fitness, etc., none of which might others actually recognize for they miracles they are. In face, I would dare say that most outward manifestations of faith are just these. Because, really, what good does it do for most of us to move a mountain? But to move another person's (or our own) soul...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share