Peter, the rock- or pebble?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlotte408
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlotte408

Guest
I was looking for stuff on Matthew …16:18??? in which Christ says:

Matthew 16:18 (New International Version)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[c]**

and I happened to see this website pop up in the search results and…I always thought the passage was plain as day, but they bring up a point about translations and what those words actually meant…and then about Christs physical brother- both of these things sound wayyyy off to me…Jesus never had a brother? i thought??

I’d like to hear the rebuttles to these arguments, please 🙂
  1. Christ does not say that He is making Peter the head of His church.
  2. The key to understanding this scripture lies in the correct translation of the Greek words here rendered “Peter” and “rock.” The Greek word translated “Peter” is petros, meaning “pebble” or “small stone,” while the word rendered “rock” is petra, meaning “big rock” or “huge boulder.”
  3. Christ says He would build His church on the boulder, not on Peter the pebble. Christ is the rock (I Corinthians 10:4). He is also the “chief cornerstone,” upon which the church is built (Ephesians 2:20).
  4. Although Peter is shown in a leadership position among the apostles throughout the gospels and Acts, the early church leaders did not function in a strict hierarchical manner. Read and study Acts 15:1-29. Here is a ministerial conference called to discuss a matter of doctrine causing division in the church (verse 6). Peter makes his point (verses 7-11), which is later adopted by the other apostles and elders (verse 22). But it is James, the physical brother of Jesus Christ and pastor of the Jerusalem church, who sums up the conference’s decision (verses 13-19). This helps us to understand how the apostles (plural) form the foundation of the church with the prophets (Ephesians 2:20).
  5. Peter was not infallible. Read Matthew 16:21-23, where Jesus has to rebuke Peter severely for a wrong attitude immediately after His statement about the “rock.” In addition, the apostle Paul later corrects him publicly for returning to the Jewish practice of refusing to eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14).
From these proofs, it is easy to see that Jesus did not say He would build His church on Peter, a mere man, but on Himself, and because of that, the church would endure and prevail.**
 
Charlotte, you can’t honestly expect the folks on this board to refute every piece of foolishness you find on the internet, Please be reasonable. If you are a Catholic, you already know the answer to all of these questions.

In the Catholic Church alone, there rests the teaching authority to translate and interpret scripture. Christ did not give any teaching authority to blogs, websites, or false churches. There is one true church, The Holy Catholic church and all other are false.

So stop following Google links and follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
It’s really, really easy to follow what happened. Simon and the other apostles are hanging out with Jesus one day and Jesus says “I will build my church upon rock, and from now on, Simon, we’re going to call you Rock. I have officially changed your name to Rock and that is what you will go by and be remembered as. Got that?” Apparently everyone else understood that what Jesus said meant that Rock was in charge after Jesus leaves.

See, very easy.
 
#2: Peter could not have been named “petra” because petra would be a woman’s name (like in Spanish).

#3: Follows from #2

You might want to re-post this question on the Apologetics forum ( forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 ) because I think the users of that forum would be more inclined to answer your question than the users of this one.
 
Gee, funny that nobody ever noticed all those ‘points’ in 1500 years.

Here is an anecdote (FWIW) that might make you think about the whole “language” thing.

OK, y’all know the story where Jesus meets up with Simon (whose brother Andrew was all gung ho about this being the Messiah), and goes past James and John who are fishing with their father Zebedee. Now Jesus says to them. . .“Come with me and I will make you fishers of men”.

OK, so it’s a play on words, right? These people are FISHERMEN (men who fish) but JESUS tells them instead of them ‘fishing for fish’ he will have them 'fish for men".

BUT. . .in the 1980s along with the hideous insistence by many Catholic priests that we refer to John the Baptist as “John the Baptizer” (lest we dummies get confused into thinking that John was a 20th century member of the Baptist church, I suppose:rolleyes:) we likewise had the ‘inclusive language’.

So that the gospel readings got changed to “Come with me and I will make you fishers of people”.

Ouch. Yeah, so much for a play on words. You’re fisherman, and I’ll make you ‘fishers of people’ just doesn’t have the ‘ring’ of the original. . .

So. . . IS that 'fishers of people" remark what Jesus actually (speaking in Aramaic too) **said??? **highly unlikely that Jesus used a late 20th century idiom- aberration rather than a play on words (in Aramaic) meant to be understood as a play on words.

The ‘petra’ crowd stubbornly refuses to admit that the actual words petra and petros are a GREEK translation of words which were themselves spoken in Aramaic. It’s like they’re hung up on this one case in which the translation of the idiom doesn’t work and try to ‘retro back’ to make the original ‘not fit’.

Think of say English expressions like “that’s a loud one” (in reference to a remark, meaning that said remark is untrue. ) Now, if you were to translate those words into another language, like Russian, where the Russians do not KNOW the idiomatic reference in English, the people might think that the actual remark was spoken LOUDLY and that is what is being ‘objected to’. . .and they’d be wrong with reference to what the (English) actual intention and reference was, right?

But we wouldn’t INSIST (I hope) that hey, the Russians complaining that the remark was 'loud or noisy" were RIGHT and that the original English expression meant that the person THEN, in the original English, was complaining about a ‘noisy’ remark. . .

If we did, we’d be foolish. Sadly, a lot of people get so caught up in trying to justify themselves on points that they will fall for just such foolish traps. . .
 
The above assertions may be new to you, but they’re not new. They’ve already been refuted many, many times. Here’s the Catholic Answers tract in the subject:

Peter the Rock
 
Pope JohnPaul II gave an excelent dissertation on this subject at his general audience
on November 25, 1992. Go to www.vatican.va to read it.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Since Jesus most likely spoke in Aramaic, according to Scott Hahn, there was no masculine/feminine word for rock. It was just rock.

When Matthew wrote his Gospel, he used Greek where there were feminine/masculine words for rock.
 
perfectpeach said:
Since Jesus most likely spoke in Aramaic, according to Scott Hahn, there was no masculine/feminine word for rock. It was just rock.

When Matthew wrote his Gospel, he used Greek where there were feminine/masculine words for rock.
Click to expand...
Well, sort of. the aramaic issue is correct; when translating the Aramaic word for rock into Greek, it would have been Petra. However, petra is feminine (both Greek and Latin have words that are either masculine or feminine, even if the object is inanimate and thus having no sexual distinction). However, since Peter was a male, calling him Petra made no sense so the word was “masculinized” to Petros.

And the word for pebble is not petros. It is lithos. Thus your challenger shows their ignorance of Greek.

In short, it is a non-issue and a non-starter.
 
Explore the Greek, Aramaic Biblical text and see how easy words can change meanings.
Why test Jesus words?
 
and I happened to see this website pop up in the search results and…I always thought the passage was plain as day, but they bring up a point about translations and what those words actually meant…and then about Christs physical brother- both of these things sound wayyyy off to me…Jesus never had a brother? i thought??
Click to expand...
Jesus had no brother that were born of Mary’s womb, he had “brothers” who were descended from Joseph’s brother named Clophas aka Alpheaus, and other “brothers” who were sons of Mary’s “sister” Salome, who may also have been called Mary, she may or may not have been a daughter of Mary’s parents Joachim and Anna.
  1. Christ does not say that He is making Peter the head of His church.
Click to expand...
Christ gives Peter the “keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” no other apostle were given these keys, Acts shows Peter leading things after Jesus ascends. Kepha “is etymologically connected to the Greek word kephale, which means “head” - as in Eph. 5:23, where Christ is the “head” (kephale) of the Church.” A word like Kepha is used in Hebrew twice and it refers to a large cave. Kepha was Peter’s Jewish/Aramaic name.
  1. The key to understanding this scripture lies in the correct translation of the Greek words here rendered “Peter” and “rock.” The Greek word translated “Peter” is petros, meaning “pebble” or “small stone,” while the word rendered “rock” is petra, meaning “big rock” or “huge boulder.”
Click to expand...
Historically Christians have not made a distinction between Petros and Petra, Koine Greek does not really do that. Many Protestant commentaries say Peter is the rock on which Christ builds the Church
  1. Christ says He would build His church on the boulder, not on Peter the pebble. Christ is the rock (I Corinthians 10:4). He is also the “chief cornerstone,” upon which the church is built (Ephesians 2:20).
Click to expand...
Christ is called what seems to a be literal rock, this is taken from the Exodus out of Egypt, St Paul follows the Jewish tradition that the rock followed the Israelites. There is no objection to Christ being called Rock, but this is a completely different context.

One Church Father explains:

"Paul teaches ‘The Rock was Christ,’ [1 Cor. 10:3] so through Christ Peter was made the Rock, the Lord saying to him “thou art Peter.”–St Maximus of Turin, AD 423

Ephesians 2 actually says: “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.”

The Apostles are also called foundations in Revelation 21:14. None of this negates what was said by Christ in Matt 16
  1. Although Peter is shown in a leadership position among the apostles throughout the gospels and Acts, the early church leaders did not function in a strict hierarchical manner. Read and study Acts 15:1-29. Here is a ministerial conference called to discuss a matter of doctrine causing division in the church (verse 6). Peter makes his point (verses 7-11), which is later adopted by the other apostles and elders (verse 22). But it is James, the physical brother of Jesus Christ and pastor of the Jerusalem church, who sums up the conference’s decision (verses 13-19). This helps us to understand how the apostles (plural) form the foundation of the church with the prophets (Ephesians 2:20).
Click to expand...
James seemed to lead things in the council because the error came from James’ jurisdiction, the Church in Jerusalem, so it was fitting that James play a leading role. James the Apostle was one of the 12 Apostles, and the Gospel lists his father as Alphaus/Clophas, who was the brother to Joseph, Jesus’ stepfather.
  1. Peter was not infallible. Read Matthew 16:21-23, where Jesus has to rebuke Peter severely for a wrong attitude immediately after His statement about the “rock.” In addition, the apostle Paul later corrects him publicly for returning to the Jewish practice of refusing to eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14).
Click to expand...
The Church does not start til Pentecost, which happened after Matthew 16. There are 2 major interpretations of Galatians 2, where Paul rebukes Peter. But in any case Peter was acting out of fear of the Jews, infallible is not being impeccable, and infallibility cannot take place under coercion anyway. The error he was Peter’s actions not so much his teachings, though his actions could imply a certain teaching, but regardless Peter ALREADY knew that not eating with the Gentiles was wrong, he was the first Apostle to the Gentiles, as he mentions in Acts 15, and in Acts 10 Peter is given the revelation that Gentiles are acceptable before God, they are not unclean, and God is not a respector of persons (ie racist). So I cannot see Peter teaching error here, though his actions were unacceptable even though he had done so out of fear of Jewish Christians.
 
From these proofs, it is easy to see that Jesus did not say He would build His church on Peter, a mere man, but on Himself, and because of that, the church would endure and prevail.
Click to expand...
The Scriptures state many times the Apostles are foundations of the Church.

“And so I say to you, **you **are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will **give **you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever **you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever **you **loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The rock being Peter or Peter’s confession of faith are both acceptable interpretations, but Christ being the Rock in this context would be confusing and akward since this is where Jesus renames Simon “Peter” typically after naming someone in the bible the significance of the name is explained, like “you are to name him Jesus [meaning the Lord **saves], because he will **save **his people from their sins.”(Matthew 1:23)

Why would Jesus name someone rock only to follow it up by saying “I am the rock, not you, I will build the Church on this rock, myself that is, I don’t know why I just called you rock I had no reason for doing so”
 
BerhaneSelassie said:
The Scriptures state many times the Apostles are foundations of the Church.

“And so I say to you, **you **are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will **give **you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever **you **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever **you **loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The rock being Peter or Peter’s confession of faith are both acceptable interpretations, but Christ being the Rock in this context would be confusing and akward since this is where Jesus renames Simon “Peter” typically after naming someone in the bible the significance of the name is explained, like "you are to name him Jesus [meaning the Lord **saves
Click to expand...
], because he will **save **his people from their sins."(Matthew 1:23)

Why would Jesus name someone rock only to follow it up by saying “I am the rock, not you, I will build the Church on this rock, myself that is, I don’t know why I just called you rock I had no reason for doing so”

Maybe there is confusion in understanding ( this is what happens with "Sola Scriptura ).
Jesus IS the CORNERSTONE of His Church and Peter is the ROCK on which this
cornerstone ( and the Church ) rests.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Cornelius Lapide’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:

Ver. 10.—According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master–builder I have laid the foundation. Not mine is this building, not mine the works; for although I, as the first architect, laid the foundations, by my preaching, of the Church at Corinth, yet whatever I did, and brought to perfection there, was done, not by my strength, but by the grace of God. Let, then, this building of God’s Church be attributed to His grace, not to my efforts.

Ver. 11.—For other foundation can no man lay. I have laid the foundation of your Church: let Apollos and others see what superstructure they raise upon, but not endeavour to lay a new foundation. For no other foundation can be laid, for it is Jesus Christ Himself. The foundation, then, of the Church, and of each individual soul in it, is Jesus Christ, i.e., faith in Him as our Saviour, and especially that faith which is quickened by charity, on which I have built you. So Anselm, and S. Gregory (lib. vii. epist. 47).

In this sense Christ alone is the foundation of the Church, and the foundation of the foundations, as S. Augustine says (Ps. lxxxvii. 1), because He rests on Himself alone, and bears up all others, even Peter. In another sense Peter is the foundation of the Church, viz., a secondary one, because from his firmness in the faith he cannot publicly teach error, but always confirms others in it, and gives them light. This is laid down by S. Thomas and all Catholic theologians. In a similar sense, not only Peter, but all the Apostles, are called the foundations of the Church (Ps. lxxxvii. 1; Rev. xxi. 19).
 
TERTULLIAN

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation…(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).

ORIGEN

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

And if any should say ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world…And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).

For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1, p. 1).
The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere (Homily 24, On Genesis..Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 165).
 
When Jesus established His Church, and the Kingdom, the old law no longer held. He, as
God, could “fulfill”, complete, abrogate, etc. the old law. He gave us a new commandment and a new everlasting covenant. In proof of this, He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom.
Now ,we all know that whoever possesses the keys to a house is the master of that house. He can admit who he will and exclude who he will. Jesus made Peter the master of His house here on earth and the authority to rule it. This authority did not end with Peter but has been passed on to his successors. If not, then why did Jesus bother at all to establish a Church without passing on the authority to rule it.

And as if this were not enough, to make it clear that Peter was to rule for Jesus, He also
gave Peter ( and his successors ) the power to “bind and to loose”. The decisions that
Peter ( and his successors ) make acting as the steward or vicar of Christ will be, and
are, ratified in Heaven. Jesus Himself will ratify these decisions ( per His words ). To say, or do, otherwise is to deny and reject Jesus’ words.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Charlotte408 said:
I was looking for stuff on Matthew …16:18??? in which Christ says:

Matthew 16:18 (New International Version)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[c]****

and I happened to see this website pop up in the search results and…I always thought the passage was plain as day, but they bring up a point about translations and what those words actually meant…and then about Christs physical brother- both of these things sound wayyyy off to me…Jesus never had a brother? i thought??

I’d like to hear the rebuttles to these arguments, please 🙂
  1. Christ does not say that He is making Peter the head of His church.
  2. The key to understanding this scripture lies in the correct translation of the Greek words here rendered “Peter” and “rock.” The Greek word translated “Peter” is petros, meaning “pebble” or “small stone,” while the word rendered “rock” is petra, meaning “big rock” or “huge boulder.”
  3. Christ says He would build His church on the boulder, not on Peter the pebble. Christ is the rock (I Corinthians 10:4). He is also the “chief cornerstone,” upon which the church is built (Ephesians 2:20).
  4. Although Peter is shown in a leadership position among the apostles throughout the gospels and Acts, the early church leaders did not function in a strict hierarchical manner. Read and study Acts 15:1-29. Here is a ministerial conference called to discuss a matter of doctrine causing division in the church (verse 6). Peter makes his point (verses 7-11), which is later adopted by the other apostles and elders (verse 22). But it is James, the physical brother of Jesus Christ and pastor of the Jerusalem church, who sums up the conference’s decision (verses 13-19). This helps us to understand how the apostles (plural) form the foundation of the church with the prophets (Ephesians 2:20).
  5. Peter was not infallible. Read Matthew 16:21-23, where Jesus has to rebuke Peter severely for a wrong attitude immediately after His statement about the “rock.” In addition, the apostle Paul later corrects him publicly for returning to the Jewish practice of refusing to eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-14).
From these proofs, it is easy to see that Jesus did not say He would build His church on Peter, a mere man, but on Himself, and because of that, the church would endure and prevail.

Dear Charlotte,

Looking at Christ through the lens of anthropology, it is logical to assume He spoke a few words of Greek (buying fish, getting basic directions, etc.) but His useful spoken languages were probably limited to Hebrew and Aramaic. It is probable that He also read Greek. Therefore to analyze His words in Greek is a logical straw man. It serves only to confuse the issue. Over the years many, primarily protestant, translators have tried to weaken this phrase for obvious reason. Part of the problem is that the Aramaic used in that time was less a full language than a pidgin language spoken with smatterings of various languages. [Think of southern California where any given conversation on the street could have phrases from English, Spanish, Korean, etc.] The best guide we have is St. Jerome. Using his translation we can reconstruct the conversation to be more like this: [Peter, you are a Rock and upon this Rock I shall build my Church]

Therefore once you get past the fallacious arguments on the internet you see that Christ was A) Making Peter the earthly leader of His Church and B) The Church Peter founds his the True Church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

This should resolve points 1-3

Point 4. The leader proposes the directions, the secretary records them for posterity. I do not mean to in any way demean James, but Peter is clearly the one Christ calls to lead His Church.

Point 5. Peter was definitely NOT infallible. Peter was often a half-hearted try-it-for-a-bit sort of guy. He walks on water and then doubts and nearly drowns. He denies Christ 3 times, He pulls a sword and hacks off a guys ear!
Peter was clearly NOT a real saint of a guy in this time with Jesus. Thank God for that. If Jesus had chosen St. John to start His Church we’d all be in trouble. I can never be John, but I can screw up like Peter. And, like Peter, I can go on to do great things if I allow myself to be led by Christ. Peter, like David in the O.T., loves the Lord but sometimes just screws up. I mean, let’s be serious, Christ came and taught about peace and faith. And then after he predicts it Peter still denies Him thrice!

God knows what He is doing and always has. In giving us His Church started by Him through this horribly mortal man he has once again (Maybe it’s only me, but I know I’m dense and need MANY examples) shown us that it is not our actions before we know the risen Lord and His Church but what we do AFTER we know the risen Lord and His Church. Peter was this guy who hacked off a guy’s ear and yet still was the first pope and was Martyred for His Lord.

Dearest Charlotte, please do not let the crud of mortal life challenge the sheer Joy you have in the Holy Catholic Church but know that you have the Truth.

I see that you are suspended and I will pray for your reinstatement as your posts have often been very informative and thought provoking.

Bryan
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top