L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
That runs contrary to every source I’ve read on this–anyone else?
- Status
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
There’s a famous rabbinic proverb: naflah kepha al kedarah; oy lkedarah. “If a rock falls on your pot, too bad for the pot.”
G
Goya
Guest
What???
So this “palm sized rock” falls ON TO a pot–NOT INTO the pot–and too bad for the pot???
That’s either one huge palm we’re talking about…or one tiny, fragile pot.
…or maybe, just maybe…a decent sized rock?
Do you hear yourself???
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
Sure. Ceramic pots were pretty darn fragile in the ancient world, and a kedarah is not all that large.What???
So this “palm sized rock” falls ON TO a pot–NOT INTO the pot–and too bad for the pot???
That’s either one huge palm we’re talking about…or one tiny, fragile pot.
…or maybe, just maybe…a decent sized rock?
Do you hear yourself???
If you go back and read the posts, the difference we’re discussing is “big immovable rock” per Lion of Narnia (post #19)—something you would/could build something on—or the synonym of sur [sic. *tsur] in Biblical Hebrew (post #17), versus a rock that could be handled or thrown (Aram. kepha), or in this case, fall or be dropped on something else (cf. petros, post #8).
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
I’ll stick with Stephen Ray (as one among many former protestants who know some Aramaic, Hebrew, & Koine) who says Kepha means BIG rock especially in this context:
Jesus leads the disciples (the 12 and others) into the predominetly gentile district of Caesarea Philippi. This area is dominated by a BIG rock escarpment (petra in koine, kepha in aramaic), at whose base the Jordan River bursts out from an opening in the rock then known to the locals as “Pan’s Spring” and was used as a pagan shrine (with a temple to the “deified” Augustus at the summit!) to a god the Jews considered the epitome of Greco-Roman religious falseness. Keep in mind Jesus’ travels almost always had a significant point, and His coming to this pagan stronghold to prompt Peter to his declaration is not random–this incident foreshadows the future where this same collection of Jewish peasants, lead by Peter, will declare Jesus’ messiahship to the gentile world.
Jesus leads the disciples (the 12 and others) into the predominetly gentile district of Caesarea Philippi. This area is dominated by a BIG rock escarpment (petra in koine, kepha in aramaic), at whose base the Jordan River bursts out from an opening in the rock then known to the locals as “Pan’s Spring” and was used as a pagan shrine (with a temple to the “deified” Augustus at the summit!) to a god the Jews considered the epitome of Greco-Roman religious falseness. Keep in mind Jesus’ travels almost always had a significant point, and His coming to this pagan stronghold to prompt Peter to his declaration is not random–this incident foreshadows the future where this same collection of Jewish peasants, lead by Peter, will declare Jesus’ messiahship to the gentile world.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
That’s of course your choice. From my own perspective, I find that apologists like Steve Ray and Jimmy Akin are often mistaken or at least fairly misleading when it comes to their comments on history, the Bible and most particularly, ancient languages—likely because they’ve never really studied the subjects in an academic setting.
They’re fine though for explaining Catholic teaching, at least as far as I know.
A
Abu
Guest
‘Not only will our Lord use it, but it is transliterated into Greek in the Pauline letters as Kephas (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9,11,14. John 1:42 translates it as Petros. Considering the text alone, and even many Protestant scholars today admit as much, the “rock” upon which the Church will be built is Peter.
fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/catechesis/questions/is-peter-really-the-rock-of-the-church-part-1/
‘Petros is only a translation of the original Aramaic name of Peter, which is *Kephas *(Cephas in its English form). It should be understood that although the New Testament was almost entirely written in Greek, Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, the Hebrew dialect. In Aramaic, the word for rock is kephas, which unlike its translation in Greek, is free from any gender influence. Thus, the Lord’s statement in Mt 16:17 is more accurately rendered as: “You are Kephas and upon this kephas I will build my Church.” The Bible, quoting the Lord Jesus, states this clearly in John 1:42. The verse reads: "Jesus looked at him [Peter] and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas (which is translated as Peter).’’ "St. Paul also called Peter by his Aramaic name in 1Corinthians 1:12 and Galatians 1:18.
catholic-response.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/peter-rock-of-church-vicar-of-christ.html
As Jimmy Akin testifies:
“the Greek Septuagint translation is petra”
jimmyakin.org/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-5.html
‘Peter the rock cannot be separated from the faith of his confession, but the rock has direct reference to Peter himself, not just the faith of his confession, as Evangelical and Protestant scholars now widely and correctly affirm.
‘Among the chorus of voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: “After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter” (Caragounis 1).’
jimmyakin.org/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-6.html
That reality added to the specific establishment of St Peter as His Chief Vicar in His Church confirms the unassailable facts.
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].
**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
So the other Apostles were not given the supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar, and no other church has been founded by Christ Himself, with His mandate and protection from teaching error in dogma and doctrine to the whole Church on faith or morals.
fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instructions/catechesis/questions/is-peter-really-the-rock-of-the-church-part-1/
‘Petros is only a translation of the original Aramaic name of Peter, which is *Kephas *(Cephas in its English form). It should be understood that although the New Testament was almost entirely written in Greek, Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic, the Hebrew dialect. In Aramaic, the word for rock is kephas, which unlike its translation in Greek, is free from any gender influence. Thus, the Lord’s statement in Mt 16:17 is more accurately rendered as: “You are Kephas and upon this kephas I will build my Church.” The Bible, quoting the Lord Jesus, states this clearly in John 1:42. The verse reads: "Jesus looked at him [Peter] and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas (which is translated as Peter).’’ "St. Paul also called Peter by his Aramaic name in 1Corinthians 1:12 and Galatians 1:18.
catholic-response.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/peter-rock-of-church-vicar-of-christ.html
As Jimmy Akin testifies:
“the Greek Septuagint translation is petra”
jimmyakin.org/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-5.html
‘Peter the rock cannot be separated from the faith of his confession, but the rock has direct reference to Peter himself, not just the faith of his confession, as Evangelical and Protestant scholars now widely and correctly affirm.
‘Among the chorus of voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: “After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter” (Caragounis 1).’
jimmyakin.org/2009/09/the-petrine-fact-part-6.html
That reality added to the specific establishment of St Peter as His Chief Vicar in His Church confirms the unassailable facts.
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].
**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
So the other Apostles were not given the supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar, and no other church has been founded by Christ Himself, with His mandate and protection from teaching error in dogma and doctrine to the whole Church on faith or morals.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
As I see it: When Jesus ask Simon Peter " But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said in reply “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father. And I say to you , you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
Peter received the gift of grace, and this grace was Faith in Jesus Christ,which constitutes the foundation of the Catholic Christian faith We know by faith, that Jesus Christ is the corner stone that the builders rejected, and the Church is built on the truth, and that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. So belief in Jesus (a gift of grace) becomes the very foundation of Christianity. In analogy then we can compare this belief as a rock, the truth solidly established by belief, that Jesus is the Foundation of the Church
Jesus called Simon, Peter ( meaning rock) because he represented this faith in Jesus by the gift of grace. So Peter represented this belief in Jesus (and Jesus is the Truth) so Peter metaphorically could be called " the little rock" and Jesus called “the Big Rock” And those that are given the grace of the “Faith” can be said to be the "living stones of the Church. One outstanding characteristic of Simon was his faith and I think for that reason Jesus chose him to head His church, after his faith in Jesus was reinforced. It isn’t history, or witness that constitutes the foundation of the church but faith in the truth that Jesus is God-man, the Savior, the Messiah, the Son of God, and that comes only by the gift of grace from the Father.
Peter received the gift of grace, and this grace was Faith in Jesus Christ,which constitutes the foundation of the Catholic Christian faith We know by faith, that Jesus Christ is the corner stone that the builders rejected, and the Church is built on the truth, and that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. So belief in Jesus (a gift of grace) becomes the very foundation of Christianity. In analogy then we can compare this belief as a rock, the truth solidly established by belief, that Jesus is the Foundation of the Church
Jesus called Simon, Peter ( meaning rock) because he represented this faith in Jesus by the gift of grace. So Peter represented this belief in Jesus (and Jesus is the Truth) so Peter metaphorically could be called " the little rock" and Jesus called “the Big Rock” And those that are given the grace of the “Faith” can be said to be the "living stones of the Church. One outstanding characteristic of Simon was his faith and I think for that reason Jesus chose him to head His church, after his faith in Jesus was reinforced. It isn’t history, or witness that constitutes the foundation of the church but faith in the truth that Jesus is God-man, the Savior, the Messiah, the Son of God, and that comes only by the gift of grace from the Father.
D
DavidFilmer
Guest
Where are you getting that??? Peter received revelation. That’s not the same as grace or faith.
Lots of people received revelation without receiving grace or faith. Heck, Pharaoh received revelation (in dreams - something about fat cows coming out of the Nile, if I recall).
You got the first part and the last part correct, but you fell apart in the middle. What does Scripture tell us the Church is built upon?
You left out the part where the foundation of the Church is actually people. I highlighted it for you.
Ibid
Noooo, he called Simon, Peter, because he was one of those people (the main non-divine person) that would make up the foundation of his Church. Occam’s razor: the simplest answer is usually correct. Why all this complexity? Why can’t Jesus simply have meant what he said? “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church.”
Jesus said nothing about big rocks or little rocks. Jesus was not speaking Greek to the Apostles! He was speaking Aramaic, and Simon’s Aramaic name is preserved in many places. His Aramaic name is Cephus (Gal 2:7-14, 1Cor. 1:11-13, 1Cor. 3:21, 1Cor. 9:5, 1Cor. 15:5). Jesus said, “You are Cephus, and upon this **Cephus **I will build my Church.”
Cephus means “rock.” It usually refers to a material, not to an object. “Cephus” does not imply large or small rock. A bolder may be “Cephas” and a pebble may be “Cephus” (just as a bolder or pebble could both be called “a rock” in English).
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The usual work in Aramaic to refer to the material is evnah, not kepha. Perhaps you could provide some examples where kepha is used to denote rock as a material if this is what you are claiming. One wouldn’t build anything on either a boulder or a pebble; that’s the part that doesn’t make sense.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
What is revelation if it is not a gift of faith , formally supernatural revelation is a gratuitous, oral teaching given by God to men with reference to salvation and eternal life. This revelation to Peter came to Peter by the Father. Jesus revealed Himself to others but they did not accept Him, why, was it not because they weren’t given the gift of faith? Faith as described in the Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology: " Faith is the adhesion of the intellect, under the influence of grace, to a truth revealed by God" Did Jesus state that Peter could not admitt that Jesus was the Messiah if the Father had not given it to him. Yes it was a divine revelation, and by grace from the Father Peter’s intellect was disposed to receive it.
You reinforced my statement, that Jesus revealed Himself to others but they did not believe Him(they didn’t receive the grace of belief, because they rejected it)
In faith, we believe that Jesus Christ is the Foundation of the Church, it’s Founder (the Rock)
even though history shows the high probability, and witnesses do the same, the bottom line is still faith, it’s all about “Amazing Grace” not about human endeavor, historical evidence, or witness. We show that Faith is reasonable, by these endeavors.
When the Church is spoken of , it means that visible society, founded by Jesus Christ under one head, St.Peter continuing under the governance of his successors, the popes. The Church is also the Mystical Body of Christ, with Christ as it’s head, and the Holy Spirit it’s soul It’s members are the living stones of the Church, members of the body. The faithful are united in the belief (that Jesus Christ is it’s founder) I referred to Jesus as the Big Rock in an allegorical sense as I did with Peter (the little rock). Peter on earth is Christ’s representative by Jesus’ appointment. I see no problem.
Ibid
DavidFilmer said:True, but when dealing with matters of faith we can never exhaust it’s full meaning. If we study scripture it becomes evident that Peter is the one who displayed much faith in Christ. It is by faith that we are saved, and that’s what the church is all about, salvation and eternity believing in the teachings of Christ It is impossible to please God without faith. This solid belief in Jesus Christ , that He is God-man, Messiah, the Son of God, the Word made Flesh is what the whole church is based on. If this belief didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be any Church. So what is the full meaning of Jesus’ words when He said “flesh and blood had no revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven”? Now if I said anything that is contrary to our Faith, to church teaching, then I withdraw, or strive to correct my statements
DavidFilmer:
about big rocks or little rocks. Jesus was not speaking Greek to the Apostles! He was speaking Aramaic, and Simon’s Aramaic name is preserved in many places. His Aramaic name is Cephus (Gal 2:7-14, 1Cor. 1:11-13, 1Cor. 3:21, 1Cor. 9:5, 1Cor. 15:5). Jesus said, “You are Cephus, and upon this **Cephus **I will build my Church.”
No Jesus said nothing about a big rock, or a little rock, I already stated it was an allegory, I accept the words of Christ. And it doesn’tmatter to me what language was used, I let the theologians iron that out. Peter is a man appointed by Jesus to head His church here on earth (a human, therefore a little rock as a matter of fact his nick name is called “Rocky Johnson- son of bar-Jonah” Jesus is called the Big Rock, the foundation upon which the Church is built, and in a real sense,it is faith is Jesus that constitutes this foundation, for no faith in Jesus, no faith in St.Peter as Jesus’ successor, no church.
DavidFilmer:
No argument, I accept
C
classicar
Guest
This is one I always marvel at. Jesus was NOT talking about a “pebble” to Peter, or the entire conversation would not make sense and be utterly confusing. Would Jesus waste time on the uplifting of Peter in the first place, if He meant for him to be named “the ROCK”, and then suddenly infer “Oh, but not THE rock, I mean myself on that one, but take the name “ROCK” anyway.” ?
Do you see where this rock and pebble stuff leads? No, people, Jesus was not mincing words when He told Peter that his name was “ROCK”… and the authority that he was giving with it. He meant it for Peter, or He would not have had the conversation with him in the first place. Confusing He is not; it is WE who seem to like to mince words and confuse this stuff. Protest-ants do not like the idea of Apostolic authority, so this confusion is the only way that they can worm their way out of it. Classicar.
Do you see where this rock and pebble stuff leads? No, people, Jesus was not mincing words when He told Peter that his name was “ROCK”… and the authority that he was giving with it. He meant it for Peter, or He would not have had the conversation with him in the first place. Confusing He is not; it is WE who seem to like to mince words and confuse this stuff. Protest-ants do not like the idea of Apostolic authority, so this confusion is the only way that they can worm their way out of it. Classicar.
K
KenoKafo
Guest
K
KenoKafo
Guest
T There are several reasons other than the “rock”/“stone”/ “pebble” question which support Peter and his successors being the Head of the Church found in Matthew 16. In that passage our Lord also gives to Peter “…the Keys to the Kingdom…” In Palestine at the time, Kings would give the keys to their treasuries, palace,harems to their vicar as a symbol and reality of the vicars power to act in place of the King. Not to mention our Lord’s assurance that “…the gates of hell shall not prevail against…” the Church. Peter and his successors are intrusted with the Keys, the Vicarage of Jesus Christ on earth.
Recall, the devil is a liar and the father of lies? Our Lord assured us the Head of His Church/ the Body of the Church would not lie to the members of the Body of Christ. Papal Infallibility - ex cathedra - on all matters of Faith and Morals is insured. N.B.: this does not allow the Pope to make infallible statements concerning any subjects but Faith and Morals.
Love Jesus Christ!
KK
Recall, the devil is a liar and the father of lies? Our Lord assured us the Head of His Church/ the Body of the Church would not lie to the members of the Body of Christ. Papal Infallibility - ex cathedra - on all matters of Faith and Morals is insured. N.B.: this does not allow the Pope to make infallible statements concerning any subjects but Faith and Morals.
Love Jesus Christ!
KK
C
CarmelJerome
Guest
This sh pow s again the tendency to reduce the meaning of a passage to chopped up lexical bits which n render the whole reading nonsense Who exactly is receiving the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and being given power to bind and loose? Only Peter is being addressed - I once heard a prominent evangelical scholar suggest that after Jesus calls Peter the rock He then points to Himself - a fairly standard case of altering scripture into gestures or implications that the direct sense doesn’t permit. Jesus first informs Peter that the he has received a direct revelation from the Father; that therefore he is being given a new name; and with this gift and new name he receives the responsibility for safeguarding and furthering the revelation through opening or shutting access to it.
J
James82
Guest
Actually Zondervan has a wide range of philosophical, theological and nuanced works; a lot of which are really good (I choose to ignore Protestant doctrinal readings though), but some of the philosophy is excellent, especially presupposition apologetics.
Here we have Randy, who even quotes to you from respected Protestant scholars to support his case and attempts to open an ecumenical dialogue by way of showing many of your side would support his case.
You return with nothing except ad hominem against ‘fundamentalists’ and an accusation of obfuscation.
ob-fus-cate
/ˈɒb fəˌskeɪt, ɒbˈfʌs keɪt/
Spell Syllables
verb (used with object), obfuscated, obfuscating.
- to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
"to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information."
3.to darken.
So you can see by that definition he did the exact opposite. He appealed to extraneous information to help the conversation.
And if neither the authority of the Catholic Church or some of your own will not help you then why bother?
J
James82
Guest
Actually Zondervan has a wide range of philosophical, theological and nuanced works; a lot of which are really good (I choose to ignore Protestant doctrinal readings though), but some of the philosophy is excellent, especially presupposition apologetics.
Here we have Randy, who even quotes to you from respected Protestant scholars to support his case and attempts to open an ecumenical dialogue by way of showing many of your side would support his case.
You return with nothing except ad hominem against ‘fundamentalists’ and an accusation of obfuscation.
ob-fus-cate
/ˈɒb fəˌskeɪt, ɒbˈfʌs keɪt/
Spell Syllables
verb (used with object), obfuscated, obfuscating.
- to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
"to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information."
3.to darken.
So you can see by that definition he did the exact opposite. He appealed to extraneous information to help the conversation.
And if neither the authority of the Catholic Church or some of your own will not help you then…meh…I suppose your own private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) will suffice.
Because surely in the 400 odd years since you boys came along, doctrine and unity have only grown.
J
James82
Guest
I was actually in LOL’ing about this earlier in a conversation with someone. It just doesn’t make ANY sense.
Modern Parlance: Jesus: “Ok look, your name is now Rock and I will build my Church upon this pebble, which is you also, your the pebble. But upon this Rock (pointing at himself) I will build my Church, got it?”
St. Peter: "uhhhhh"
J
James82
Guest
He actually sounds like a little snot. I’d have some choice words for someone with a “by the way I’m kinda a big deal around here” attitude.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
I wouldn’t consider anyone publishes material at Zondervan to be “on my side” except perhaps accidentally–it’s not just a place where a reputable scholar of the Bible would publish their work. I’m glad you enjoy their products, but that really doesn’t do anything to improve their reputation. I think the mistake many Catholic apologists make is to find some fringy Evangelical/fundamentalist(s) and then try to set up said person as some sort of spokesperson for all of Protestantism.Actually Zondervan has a wide range of philosophical, theological and nuanced works; a lot of which are really good (I choose to ignore Protestant doctrinal readings though), but some of the philosophy is excellent, especially presupposition apologetics.
Here we have Randy, who even quotes to you from respected Protestant scholars to support his case and attempts to open an ecumenical dialogue by way of showing many of your side would support his case.
You return with nothing except ad hominem against ‘fundamentalists’ and an accusation of obfuscation.
ob-fus-cate
/ˈɒb fəˌskeɪt, ɒbˈfʌs keɪt/
Spell Syllables
verb (used with object), obfuscated, obfuscating.
2. to make obscure or unclear:
- to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
"to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information."
3.to darken.
So you can see by that definition he did the exact opposite. He appealed to extraneous information to help the conversation.
And if neither the authority of the Catholic Church or some of your own will not help you then…meh…I suppose your own private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) will suffice.
Because surely in the 400 odd years since you boys came along, doctrine and unity have only grown.
Randy’s favorite tactic—I’ve “dialogued” with him before—is to ignore the questions or objections posed to something he’s raised and to respond instead with a massive copy and paste from (what I’m guessing) are various computerized apologetic notes he’s accumulated over the years–which often bear at best only a tangential relationship with what’s actually being discussed or to questions that are being posed. Or to just jump to another issue entirely. IMO, yeah it comes across as obfuscation–it cuts off the conversation. Maybe that’s not the intent, I only stated how it seems to me.
Here’s what I mean. In post #8, Randy quotes Homer to show that petros can mean “large stone.” That’s somewhat questionable as a linguistic argument, because Homeric Greek and Koine Greek are pretty far removed historically from each other, but we will let that part go.
In post #8, I respond that these are still just rocks and nothing you would ever build something on—not foundation stones/bedrock (although also certainly not pebbles) and I provide a reputable dictionary entry to provide additional information.
In post #10, Randy switches tactics and now claims that petros is irrelevant and says that size is not the issue (but isn’t that the gist of the OP?) but then also says–I guess it’s suddenly relevant again?: “Petros does not mean little rock in NT era Greek.” (totally unsupported, and pretty much a whiplash of a response because we were just discussing Homeric Greek only a couple of posts earlier) and “When translated into English it’s Peter. Peter does not mean little rock in English.” (Completely irrelevant to any discussion.) So, I thought size didn’t matter but we’re back to discussing it?
In post #11 I ask him to back up his claim: “Petros does not mean little rock in NT era Greek” preferably with a dictionary entry such as the one I provided in #9.
Instead of providing support for his assertion about “N.T. Era” Greek, in post #12 Randy includes long quotes (again, the usual tactic) from Craig Blomberg, D.A. Carson and someone named George Salmon? Who I guess wrote a book in 1914? First, I don’t know of any Bible scholar who would consider Craig Blomberg or D.A. Carson to be anything more than Evangelical apologists–they are certainly by no means linguistic experts on Greek or Aramaic or qualified to discuss the nuances of the passage or what it might mean. If they knew what they were talking about, they wouldn’t publish their work where they do–it’s basically intended for fundamentalist consumption. That’s perfectly fine; they are free to publish what they want but their work doesn’t carry sufficient weight to add anything to this discussion.
But second, and more importantly, all of that quoting doesn’t address the questions that I posed, nor does it provide any support Randy’s assertion about petros in “N.T. era” Greek. If so, I’m not seeing it. So no, they are not “respected scholars” (except maybe respected by other fundamentalists) and no, they don’t “support his case” at least that I can tell?
And all of that garners an emoji?
- Status