This is vastly different from what the OP is asserting, which is that Satan has the power to literally duplicate the flesh of humans; in this case, Peter. The OP is stating that Satan created an exact replica of Peter, including scars, hair, sound of voice . . . everything about Satan looked, acted, and sounded just like Peter . . . possibly even smelling like Peter. The OP is asserting that there were two "Peter's" walking the planet.
Would the real Peter please stand up!?.
Satan does not have the Power to create. Only the Lord, Almighty has the ability to take the corners of nothing, and create something from nothing. Satan is not a manufacturer of flesh, nor anything physical.
Sir you have a lot to learn, satan can tak up the appearance of another creation and speak. which does not make him a creater it makes him a deceiver, and the bible also makes reference to him being the the great deceiver. satan took up the apearanc eof a snake and spoke. in another part of the bible satan was referenced as appearing as an angel of light. in other parts of the bible we see angels from heaven taking up the appearance of men.
I have witnessed first hand people being deceived by a demon taking up the appearance of a living person. and that person beleiving the lie and following the instructions the demon (denomic spirit) gave.
Once again please do not accuse me of being a false teacher or someone that adds to the word of God, when your understanding of why Jesus called peter satan is no more of an assertion than mine.
this is your quote and assertion of mathew 16:23.
Jesus [did] say that Satan asked to sift Peter. The question is, had Peter's heart been relieved of the Curse of the Lord at this point? I doubt it, as after Jesus had raised Himself from the dead, that's when the disciples began to "finally believe." If this is true, and I could certainly be wrong, Satan could have gone after Peter. But how? Scripture doesn't tell us other than Peter's heart was hardened. But it is the Lord who hardens hearts; not Satan.
this is just much an assertion of mathew 16:23 as mine is. if thats what you want to call it. however i feel my insertion is an interpretation where as you call it adding to the word of God. Why because you want to cause trouble. you came here to debate from the off. and you cant stand being told you have something to learn which you do.
your saying Jesus called peter satan because peter was not free from a curse or because peters heart was hardened. well sir that is just as much an assertion just like mine so please dont judge people by your own standards.
Secondly tim we both know your intensions was to make me look like a false teacher from your very first post you made in this thread. i hadnt even mentioned mathew 16:13 at that stage.
Sir i still dont think you have given a reasonable explanation as why Jesus called peter satan, but sir your not the only one because not one single person has.
I told you sir only Jesus would know who satan was and that must mean that mathew 16:13 was not peter it was actualy satan. i then told you sir that the witness of mathew 16:13 must have not noticed. where as Jesus did. Jesus would not say get away satan if he was not there. would he. and there is no way he would call peter satan who was to be his rock. now sir suggest you take this explanation as a possible interpretation and an open invitation to study this meaning, and then i may be willing to study your interpratation of mathew 16:23, but untill then may i suggest you retract your attitude and pray. because your attiude is one of pride.
you have also suggested i was demonizing peter, when actualy sir i am defending peter. the person Whom Jesus made the rock on whom he would build our church, i hardly call that a satan do you ?.
all youve done is spew one insult after the next towards me, i suggest you get over your pride sir and learn to learn. i will pray for your oppression and hope you take notice of the scripture i posted earlier, God bless you.
1
