Get thee behind me, Satan

Then again.... some of us recognize Jesus as the Son of God.

BTW... your posting test worked just fine.

Hmmm.................It sounds to me that Jesus was saying that he wanted to be at the "head of the line", so to speak. By putting Satan in a secondary position, Jesus was in the controlling location, protecting his followers, so that evil could not get very far, without having to confront Jesus.

It sounds like it was lost in translation Letty, and I always read it to have meant something similar to "go away".

Simply another of numerous examples of how absurd / obtuse the Christian bible is, especially in the light of those expecting substantive meaning (such as Intrepid).

You'd do as well (if not better) collecting stories about UFO's and expecting answers as to Man's greater purpose.

Like Craven, I have always heard it used as "go away."

You hear people now days say it to mean that.

If I've just enjoyed a wonderful, long, satisfying meal and the waiter approaches to inquire as to whether or not I would like to try the double triple chocolate fudge brownie I might say to him "Teteth behind me, Satan!" I would mean it as "I'm so stuffed, but have enjoyed the food here so much I know the dessert would be delicious but I also know I don't have room so PLEASE do not tempt me."

The quote you mentioned was directed, not to Satan the Devil, but to Peter when he tried to advise Jesus that he would not suffer the things he foretold. (Matthew 16:23) Keep in mind that the word satan is a descriptive term meaning adversary, resister, or rebel. Jesus no doubt was dismissing Peter's worldly reasoning. He certainly was not equating Peter with God's chief adversary, for he had just commended Peter only a few verses earlier.

Which is, indeed, how he addressed Satan earlier at Matthew 4:10

Remember, all, this is not to be treated as a religious observation. Perhaps it was the way of the man, Jesus, to tell Satan to "get lost", but I am certain there were better ways of expressing it.

This has popped into my mind several times lately, and I do appreciate everyone's input. Yes, I do seem to be able to do something different for a change.

I like to acknowledge each contributor by name, as is my wont, so let's see if I can remember.

Thanks to squinney; craven; chumly; intrepid; phoenix and whoever else that I missed.

OOOPS!

I just gave you a thumbs down and saw that your post was removed from my browser.

What gives?

It's just my opinion, not a condemnation. I actually think you're an OK guy.

I had to use the back button a few times and give you a thumbs up to make sure your post stayed in my discussion.

The point I hoped to make is that there are many who purport to quote and interpret scripture without first looking to see what is actually said.

Letty simply missed the source of a quote. Not a grave error, once the source was identified. Certainly not enough to make the point you were hoping to make.

Oops, missed your input Neologist. I know how many epithets there are for Satan, but I certainly didn't consider Peter as being the one to whom he referred. I'll have to check that out. Thanks.

maybe this is where the first conga line started?

You are right, neologist, another source shows it as a reference to Peter.

Now for a question of a different sort. Why does each response appear as though it's a different thread, and why does the entire thread seems backwards to me?

UhOh, I'm at sea about the format once again. No matter as I'm learning to spell better without the spell check.

Flip Wilson once told a great story about a woman who bought an expensive
dress and explained this to her husband by saying "The Devil made me do it."

Her husband replied "Then why didn't you say 'Get thee behind me, Satan'"?

"I did, but he said, 'It looks great in back, too!'"

Now I get it. You hit the reply button to each contributor.

Ah, dear Gene. Love that avatar, and glad to see you in our conga line. (reminds me of a song, of course.

I always took the line to mean 'stand aside' or "do not get in my way'. And indeed it was addressed to Peter who had the best of noble intentions, but nevertheless was suggesting that God's will not be done which would come from Satan and not God.

Hee, hee. Love your avatar, too, soccer man, as well as your quip.

Foxfire, I realize that there are different takes on the expression, but I was simply sticking to the one that I remembered and wondered about. Thanks.

Oh for sure, Letty. I didn't mean to suggest that I have the only legitimate observatiion or intrpretation of the passage. You can take almost any line from the New Testament and write a book, or at least a page, on all the different nuances and possibilities contained within it.

And if everybody else didn't post so fast, my comment would have probably fit in with the flow here better.

Foxfyre, I think oldeurope referred to rapid responses as "clustering". You're correct, of course, as the King James version of the Bible is full of contradictions and interpretations, but beautiful as literature.

Folks, it is so good to get feedback on a subject that keeps coming to me in a form of cognitive insight. I hope we can all think on it for a bit.