To: Havoc
I'll go slow for you.
You said (in #606) "Jesus changed Peter's name elsewhere, not in Matthew 16."
I posted five verses, including Matthew 16:18, which says:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Now you state you 'don't know what it is supposed to prove' and I have to laugh.
The matter proven is self-evident, and would be so even to a child.
615 posted on
03/20/2004 6:29:05 PM PST by
Petronski
(Kerry knew...and did nothing. THAT....is weakness.)
To: Petronski
The matter proven is self-evident, and would be so even to a child.
But what if a child clamps his eyes shut and sticks his fingers in his ears while screaming and pounding his head and feet on the floor? What then? See? Strike three! You're out!
619 posted on
03/20/2004 6:39:13 PM PST by
broadsword
("The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. " Edmund Burke)
To: Petronski
John 1:42 happened long before Matthew 16. So, again, what are you trying to say? Peter having his name changed presumeably because there are two Simons in the group doesn't bug my britches any. And it certainly doesn't bear on word use in Matthew 16.
621 posted on
03/20/2004 6:41:55 PM PST by
Havoc
("The line must be drawn here. This far and no further!")
To: Petronski; Havoc
The matter proven is self-evident, and would be so even to a child.
What is proven is you don't know Scripture. Jesus had already named him Peter.
687 posted on
03/21/2004 9:17:49 AM PST by
OLD REGGIE
((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN) Maybe a Biblical Unitarian?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson