Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
The premise to uphold or debunk: (a) That the name of “Rock” was specially announced as a name for God in the Torah (Deut 32:1-4) and that (b) the name has been erased and/or lost in certain translations and thus (c) has had an effect on how Christians understand certain passages in Scripture.
Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4
We were hashing these things out on another thread here on the Religion Forum. But the thread is huge and has many sidebars and interest changed to more pressing matters – plus we were not on the “radar” of the forum as a whole. It is my hope that other posters here will have information and insight – whether Biblical archeology or theology or language – that will shed some additional light on the subject.
Translations: English from Hebrew (Masoretic)
[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.
tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar
English from the Greek (Septuagint)
As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.
English from Latin (Vulgate)
The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.
Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus
Background on the Hebrew:
Tzur is Hebrew for "rock". It is also used here:
Biblical and Talmudic Names for God Another common title of YHWH is "the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4,18, 1, 7; I Samuel 2:2; II Samuel 22:32; Isaiah 44:8; Psalm 18:32), thus comparing Him to a high crag on which one finds refuge and safety.
Nor has it been lost among Christians who have long used the King James Translation which was faithful to interpret literally the Hebrew word tzur to mean Rock instead of God or Mighty One as it is translated in the Septuagint. Ironically, the Christian hymn Rock of Ages is among their favorites. The name for God is used in several places in Deuteronomy 32 and 2 Samuel 22 but also appears throughout the Psalms and in Isaiah.
In Isaiah 30:29 and Habbukak 1:12 it is translated in the King James Version to mean Mighty One like in the Septuagint - but everywhere else that I have found it is “Rock”.
The Vulgate omits the name altogether in Deuteronomy 32:4
Why is it important? From the Jewish perspective Of all the possible errors a translator could make, missing one of the names or titles of God has to be “right up there.” Rock is one of the common names for God but nevertheless important to Judaism.
Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood"). Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better. The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God. It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it. Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:18
Jewish tradition holds that the Torah existed before the world, that every letter of it is a living creature and that altogether it, too, is a name of God. It is their – and by their hand to the world – greatest gift (since they don't receive Christ.) It is also their mission.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. - John 4:22
To me, not translating tzur literally Rock in the Septuagint - is in fact "erasing" a name of God. Moreover, it is not in the Vulgate at all in Deu 32:4.
From the Christian perspective: The name of God is crucial to all Christians. It is our first plea in the Lord’s prayer:
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:11-12 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. – John 5:43 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. – John 17:6 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. – John 17:11-13 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13
Surely the name “God is the Rock” will continue to be important in eternity. The Deuteronomy passage is in the “Song of Moses” which will be sung in heaven:
And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4
And Christ used the term Rock in two very important passages. If one misunderstands the Rock to mean something common or someone other than God, then it can lead to error.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. – Matt 7:24-25 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18
Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. – 1 Peter 2:7-8
To me, the most far reaching loss is in seeing Peter as the Rock in Matt 16:17-18 instead of God. Not that he isn’t “a“ rock but – at the very most, accepting that God is the Rock - his position in Christianity could be no more than Abraham’s in Judaism.
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2
Moreover, I assert that receiving the knowledge that “God is the Rock” can improve our understanding the Old Testament and increase our joy. As an example, consider the following passage understanding that God is the Rock, that Jesus was smitten, that the Living Water is the Spirit (John 4, 7:38):
Or perhaps this one:
And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. – Exodus 33:21-23
Here’s where the debate stands at this time:
Defense of the Vulgate/Septuagint:
The rebuttal so far is that the Septuagint chronologically precedes the Masoretic text, that the original Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated is no longer available (as far as we know to this date.)
I have not yet received a defense for why the Vulgate omits the term altogether.
Rebuttal to the defense
As to antiquity, Deuteronomy is the second most copied book at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) – 33 copies, second only to Psalms. Some are copied in fragments like literature, poems or hymns. However, generally speaking, carbon dating of manuscripts at Qumran establish true antiquity of copies at several centuries B.C. The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies does not mention any change to the Masoretic Text needed with reference to Deuteronomy 32:1-4. However, although we do have a non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) – it only contains lines 37-43. So we cannot read anything into an omission here in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Septuagint (LXX.) But as to the faithfulness of the Torah itself there is no question. As I have much personally testified, the indwelling Spirit authenticates Scripture and leads us into Truth. (John 14, 15):
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
The basic Hebrew text is called the Masoretic Text (MT), which is named after a group of scribes in the ninth century that preserved the text and added vowels and punctuation marks. The original Hebrew just had consonants, but a few consonants functioned as vowels. No one would know how to pronounce the Hebrew words unless vowels marks were added. This is a great help in understanding the text. (Hebrew Bible) There were three different tasks of copying the OT. The Sopherim wrote the consonantal text. The Nakdanim added the vowel points and accents. The Masoretes added the marginal notes. An example is the Kethib (what is written) and Qere (what should be read). There are over 1,300 of these. The vowels of the Qere were written in the text of the Kethib. There are three different systems of vowel pointing, the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian which the Masoretes created. The marginal notes called Masora were mainly written in Aramaic and were like a concordance. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Nash Papyrus was the oldest known witness to the OT which dated to the first or second century AD. It contained the decalogue. The second oldest were the Cairo Geniza fragments (about 200,000) which date to the fifth century AD (See Princeton Geniza Project). Most of these are in the Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Today the oldest known text of the OT was discovered in 1979 in tombs across the Hinnom valley from Jerusalem. The text is the benediction of Aaron (Numbers 6:24-26) written on a silver amulet from the 7th century BC (Hoerth 1998, 386). The oldest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible is the Codex Leningradensis which dates to 1008 AD. A Facsimile edition of this great codex is now available (Leningrad Codex 1998, Eerdmans for $225). The BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) follows this codex. The most comprehensive collection of old Hebrew manuscripts is in the Russian Public Library in St. Petersburg formerly called Leningrad. Another important text is the Aleppo Codex which is now in Jerusalem. The HUB (Hebrew University Bible) follows the Aleppo Codex. The Isaiah and Jeremiah editions are now available. For a more detailed study see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein and Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.
Nevertheless, the Jews always understood their responsibility to keep the Torah:
Other resources for Lurkers:
The Hebrew Alphabet wrt the history of the signs and the care in forming letters in Holy Scriptures. Ancient Hebrew Translation Project - wrt the translation of poetic form v mechanical v literal
1 Enoch 96:2 refers to the righteous rising into the cleft of the rock. Fragments of this book were found at Qumran and carbon date to about 200 BC. The scholars suggest these passages were added though in about 100 B.C. The scholars believe the original language was Hebrew and/or Aramaic.
Testament of Moses which is supposed to be a summary of Deutoronomy, but is very fragmented and the parts which would address the name, the Rock, may be missing. The scholars dispute the age of the manuscript but put it somewhere between 168 BC and 135 AD. The bearing it may have (if any) to this discussion is that Moses instructs and assures Joshua to protect the Scriptures (last part of chapter 1) in a manner that suggests there will be another find like the Dead Sea Scrolls as we get closer the Christ’s coming:
… I am going to sleep with my fathers. But (you) take this writing so that later you will remember how to preserve the books which I shall entrust to you. You shall arrange them, anoint them with cedar, and deposit them in earthenware jars in the place which (God) has chosen from the beginning of the creation of the world, (a place) where his name may be called upon until the day of recompense when the Lord will surely have regard for his people.
Truly, it frustrates me for anyone to think I am anti-Catholic.
Whereas I do not embrace any of the doctrines and traditions of men, I do not work against them either - with a few exceptions because I do work against beliefs not rooted in Judeo/Christian beliefs. I work against atheism, agnosticism, Islam, Wicca, Satanism, etc.
Jeepers, half my family is Catholic and I expect the entire family to be present and accounted for in heaven.
And frankly I cannot think of another confession which speaks “Our Father” as often as Roman Catholicism. More importantly, I am convinced it is said with all sincerity. And even if it weren't, God hears the prayer and responds to it anyway!
So there should be no angst at all when we as Christians of whatever stripe are trying to “do” what we are praying "to be" here:
Likewise we are pleading with God and binding ourselves to this: that His Name be hallowed (without limitation: by every one, every when, every where.)
And He will see it done, so I aver we should - in the here and now - hallow all of the Names He has chosen for Himself!
To save the time of pouring through my prior posts I will repeat the pertinent paragraph:
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
Frankly, I don't actually believe Jesus took the "Rockyness" away from Peter. He may simply have put Peter through the ringer exactly three times because Peter had denied Him three times. Who knows?
"But Christ makes Peter a guardian and shepherd of His flock in his stead...".
There is no Scriptural evidence that Peter was given any special authority over the other Apostles. He was first chosen but equal. Nothing more.
Luke 22:
[24] A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
[25] And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
[26] But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
[27] For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.
[28] "You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
[29] and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
[30] that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
BTW do you wish to comment on whether Jesus had named Simon as Peter prior to his "confession of faith"?
For the record, I didn't mean to imply that the name of God isn't important, or even that one name isn't important, rather that I don't see any reason to hold any one of His names more important than any other.
Thanks, it's been an interesting thread.
Alamo-Girl, I'm heartened to hear your words.
Personally, I hate the term "anti-Catholic". If someone truly thinks that Catholicism is in error, it only stands to reason that one would be anti-error. And I really don't think the term accomplishes anything in a discussion, because it implies that people are just prejudiced, which is almost never the case here on FR.
And I am delighted that you can see the deep level of piety in your Catholic relatives. We are all sinners, but the Catholics on this board from my experience cherish and love Our Lord so very very deeply and strive to accept His Holy Will in every part of their lives.
Whereas I do not embrace any of the doctrines and traditions of men, I do not work against them either ...
Do you understand that Catholics (and EOs)do not view what we're about as "doctrines and traditions of men"? I can see how one might use that phrase. I get that you think that that's a big part of what we are, just "doctrines and traditions of men".
Do you get that we don't think so, and that to throw that phrase out there as though everyone knows that's what we are runs the risk of giving offense?
There is a serious ecclesiological difference of opinion here. I get that you are not targetting us, but the phrase sounds condescending and contemptuous, like some so-called sophisticate saying about their relationship to a Christian couple, "your so-called 'marriage'." I think this may have led to the impression that you are anti-Catholic.
As I've said repeatedly, that is an old old interpretation that goes back to the Church Fathers and is none the worse for wear. I agree with it too! But not *to the exclusion* of Peter being the Rock as well. It's both Peter and Peter's confession.
BTW do you wish to comment on whether Jesus had named Simon as Peter prior to his "confession of faith"?
Sure, I think your point is a quite valid one. The name could well have preceded the confession. But that opens up another can of worms for your position, I think. Namely, if the name "Peter" was given to Simon *before* his confession, then how could it be that the name refers *only* to Peter's confession, which hadn't even happened when the name was given?
There is no Scriptural evidence that Peter was given any special authority over the other Apostles. He was first chosen but equal. Nothing more.
Well, there we have a problem. I've been doing little else but citing that Scriptural evidence. :)
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . and what is the
EVIDENCE?
Some folks believe Benny Hin is of the devil.
Some folks believe Benny Hin is greatly anointed of Holy Spirit to the resulting effect of great miracles in people's lives.
What is the evidence.
Over the centuries, it seems to me, that the bulk of the evidence is that Holy Spirit ceased to have a lot to do with most, if not all, RC pontifs a long, long time ago.
But, to be fair, Holy Spirit has probably left a lot of TV preachers in the dust long ago in their 'ministry,' too. But not all. And sometimes, not the ones people rail about the most. God seems to love a good joke--and to pour Himself through unlikely flawed vessels. Brings Him more Glory, that way, it seems.
I know you don't care a bushelful for John Calvin, but surprisingly, he's been instrumental in helping me to appreciate your posts. You unfailingly give credit to the Holy Spirit for...just about everything. And while I might disagree with a post here and there about free will, and I admit I don't understand one-tenth the physics you seem to, I found I could not argue with many of your posts because they were rooted in the recognition of the inward working of the Holy Spirit.
And John Calvin was one of the men during the Reformation who most carefully acknowledged the interweave of the Holy Spirit throughout all his many labors, and who consistently affirmed that the Holy Spirit, the word of God and our Christian walk are inseparable.
"Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to know." (Institutes, III, 21, 3-4, pp. 924)
"In Christ the Holy Spirit is always conjoined to the Word, for there is a permanent relation between faith and the Word." -- John Calvin III, 2, 6.
"It is probable...that Calvin's greatest contribution to theological science lies in the rich development which he gives -- and which he was the first to give -- to the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit...in the same sense in which we may say that the doctrine of sin and grace dates from Augustine, the doctrine of satisfaction from Anselm, the doctrine of justification by faith from Luther, -- we must say that the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit is a gift from Calvin to the Church. It was he who first related the whole experience of salvation specifically to the working of the Holy Spirit" -- B.B. Warfield, "John Calvin the Theologian."
So I think you two have a lot in common. 8~)
I do not question the sincerity of one's beliefs - and it always seems good to me when a person wants to declare what he believes and why.
Truly I do not wish to offend anyone by saying that I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of mortal men whether the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, etc.
It is a reflection of my personal epistemology - how I know what I know and how certain I am that I actually know it.
The most certain knowledge I possess are the revelations of God the Father in 1) the Person of Jesus Christ, 2) the indwelling Holy Spirit, 3) Scripture and 4) Creation.
Everything that follows is cast in uncertainty – including my own sensory perception and reasoning - and those of my correspondents.
Again I say, I do not value even my own hearing and sight in the same league with the revelations of God the Father. If what I see does not comport with what He said, then it is my sight that is in error, not His words.
For whatever reason, God has left for all of us plenty of “wiggle room” beyond His revelations to muse and speculate and theorize and hypothesize. And I’m sure those who do (including myself) are sincere in seeking understanding of Him.
Nevertheless, we are all mere mortals and are prone to error so I do not value any such musings on the same level as His revelations – they aren’t even in the same universe!
Geocentricity was a musing of the Church that turned out to be wrong. Young earth creationism is also a musing. Dispensationalism is a musing. Replacement theology is a musing. And so on….
All such doctrines and traditions of men I take at face value only – as I do my own musings such as those I love to post and "bounce off" my correspondents!
But I do try diligently to make the distinction every time I post one – this is my personal musing versus this is a leading I have in the Spirit versus this rings true in the spirit, etc. – in the hopes that no one will assess more value to my words than they should!
Any hoot – I cannot and would not change my personal epistemology to accommodate others, but I can be more cautious in assuring others that it is nothing personal about them or their confession. I’ll try to do so.
Truly I believe we should all be rejoicing over this for it is the most important part. It is evidence that we are members of the body of Christ.
I don't "sweat the details." (Philippians 4:6-7)
The differences we have, IMHO, make us like a masterpiece of God's artistry displayed on a living canvas. For the most part, our differences give color and contrast to the masterpiece.
After all, God choose twelve different gemstones for the foundation of the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and earth.
After all, God choose twelve different gemstones for the foundation of the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and earth.
That's beautiful, Alamo-Girl.
P.S. I'm loving the irenics!
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
And I am delighted that you can see the deep level of piety in your Catholic relatives. We are all sinners, but the Catholics on this board from my experience cherish and love Our Lord so very very deeply and strive to accept His Holy Will in every part of their lives.
= = =
AND PRAISE GOD FOR THAT.
I'd be quite . . . comfortable, satisfied, ?relieved? to believe that ALL such really put their wholesale focus on The Lord as you described.
I have taken great pains hereon frequently to assert that Protesty organizations are guilty of the same things the Roman folks are with some qualifications here and there and the caution that the Roman groups been doing whatever they've been doing usually far longer . . . which gets into tradition many times over.
But a new nondenominational Charismatic group that has existed for 3 years has it's own traditions and not all of them are necessarily Biblical.
I still see RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD as the focus Christ died for. I see organizations as somewhat needful but extremely hazardous and almost always destructive to healthy Christian life at least in some respects--regardless of the belief's claimed as their core doctrines.
And, I have learned the hard way from my own hideous errors in such spheres . . . chips on my shoulders, spiritual/organizational pride etc. etc. etc. are all deadly. And, the most loving thing a lot of people ever did for me was to chide me; sometimes mock such errors; jab me and generally sometimes even harrass me to release me from such tidy little stuffy, unBiblical boxes, habits, perspectives.
Usually, when I didn't pay attention to such efforts, eventually God got around to a lot sterner discipline and fiery trials until I did.
Then there's the issue . . . that we are all works in progress and life is so complex . . . probably Father laughs at us more than He cries--seeing how all fussed up we get over inconsequentials or over things He's got well covered already.
Thx for your thoughtful post.
Maybe it meant "Rocky" as Augustine said????
In any event it certainly is not a fact that Peter was the rock.
Well, there we have a problem. I've been doing little else but citing that Scriptural evidence. :)
If I cited Scriptural evidence that Jesus called Peter "Satan" in a much more direct manner than your "rock" evidence would you be ready to address Peter as Satan?
Thank you for a good discussion. I don't want to cut it short--I probably left heaps of loose ends--but we just found out today that my wife and I are expecting a child after several years of patiently waiting and praying for God to find us worthy of this awesome blessing in our marriage. I don't imagine I'll be freeping much in the next couple of days, but say a prayer for us!
I am of course well aware of "Vade retro, Satanam!"---Get Thee behind me Satan! Simon was called Peter the rest of his life. He was called Satan once...and I think all of us once in a while--including Popes--deserve that admonition. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.