Replies

Proving none of them actually read the Bible, for I explained it clearly.

Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary, New Testament Professor, Professor of New Testament, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies. Keep telling yourself they don't read the Bible and you might start to believe it.

That's another standard rebuttal I've encountered with your type: if anyone doesn't agree with your interpretation of Scripture, then "they don't read the Bible". It can't ever be that there is just a disagreement on interpretation - it has to be that they don't read the Bible.

Right out of the play book. It's old, but standard, and a technique with which your assistant pastor is familiar, I'm sure.

No, it is an honest statement of liberal Protestantism, they just dont believe what ti says anymore.

For centuries before these men lived, they would have agreed with me, not you.

that is evidence enough

Besides, if what it says in Greek is that Peter is a STONE, and since you all claim to enforce the idea that the RCC is who gave us the Bible, then to keep repeating that Peter is just a stone being a mistranslation must be an error of the Catholic Church, no?

For if the Aramaic Peter means ROCK, then the Greek, which is the accepted RCC version, regardless of which Greek text you think of, says Peter is a STONE, not a ROCK, is it a bad translation?

THAT means that either the RCC endorsed a bad translation of the Greek Peter being STONE,

or

Peter is just not the ROCK.

Either way, I explained it quite well, and your logic doesn't measure up.

You guys have tried to play the word game trying the Aramaic Peter means ROCK, but ignore that the Greek Text says STONE for Peter, which means you either have a bad translation or Peter IS a stone, and not the ROCK.

Either way, the context is what matters.

NO WHERE is ROCK assigned as to a man.

Only to God.

You guys keep trying, but not one of you has actually addressed the Biblical issue and the context of the passage being that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

And THAT is the Rock Jesus spoke of, not a sinful man who Jesus called SATAN several verses later.

So, if Peter IS the Rock, then PETER must be a Satanic rock, for it is even clearer language that Jesus called Peter SATAN immediately after calling him a rock ( according to RCC doctrine )

hint: The ROCK of the Church cannot be Satan, and you cannot deny Jesus called Peter SATAN. No matter how much you try to tell me what Jesus really meant in Aramaic.