Peter's confession of Christ
Posted on 09/25/2009 1:42:15 PM PDT by NYer
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
"You are Petros, and on this rock I will build my church." (Matt 16:18)
NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.
We have arrived at ground zero in the Petrine controversy, one of the most bitterly disputed texts in all of sacred scripture. Here the Petrine fact looms most intractably and prominently, resisting all attempts to smooth it over or roll it aside. It is a sad irony that the rock to which Jesus attached such importance has become a stone of stumbling for so many, just as the primacy of Rome, for some an icon, almost a sacrament, of unity, has become a source of division.
At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.
Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant 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).
Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:
That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus' words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as "rock" — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)
The pericope begins in Matthew 16:13, in which Jesus asks the Twelve what people are saying about him, and receives a number of different answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
Then comes the crucial question: "But who do you say I am?" As often elsewhere, Peter speaks up for the Twelve: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
The next three verses are a remarkable composition, well capable of bearing all the critical scrutiny they have received. Here is Jesus' reply in full:
1. Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
1a. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
1b. but my Father who is in heaven.
2. And I tell you, you are Petros,
2a. and on this rock I will build my church,
2b. and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.
3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
3a. and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
3b. and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The above blocking highlights a point made by Jimmy Akin (I haven't seen it developed in this form by anyone else) regarding the three-part structure of each of the three verses. Each verse starts with a major or leading clause, followed by a supporting couplet, the two clauses of which jointly illuminate and expound upon the major clause.
What is more, in each of the three leading clauses, Jesus both addresses Peter and makes a pronouncement regarding Peter: "1. Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! … 2. And I tell you, you are Petros … 3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." As we will see, each of these pronouncements is in some way unparalleled; each is extraordinary in itself, and all three together are an astonishing manifesto on Peter's behalf.
It is not surprising, then, that each of the three major Petrine pronouncements is followed by a couplet illuminating or commenting upon what Jesus has just said to Peter and about Peter. This is so clear that no one denies this in the first or third verses; everyone recognizes that "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven" is a commentary on "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona", and that "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven / and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" is a commentary on "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Yet sandwiched between those two verses is a verse that follows precisely the same pattern, yet here the pattern has historically been contested by some. It has been argued that "On this rock I will build my church / and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" is not a commentary on "I tell you, you are Petros"; that after saying "You are Petros," Jesus in effect changes the subject from the previous thought, merely punning on Petros in order to talk about some quite distinct petra — only to return to Peter in the following verse.
Start at the beginning. Jesus opens with an unparalleled benediction: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona!" Nowhere else in the Gospels does Jesus pronounce such a blessing on any individual; Peter aside, people are pronounced blessed by Jesus only in groups or classes, in the abstract, or both. To find this singular beatitude at the outset of this crucial Petrine text is itself a notable token of the Petrine fact.
Jesus then goes on to expound upon the benediction of this first remarkable clause in a supporting couplet clarifying Peter's beatitude: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven." Peter's beatitude is not something he achieved himself; it is the gift of the Father.
It must be remembered, too, that the blessing is counter-balanced six verses by the equally singular rebuke, "Get behind me, Satan!" (or "Get behind me, you satan!"). Most of Jesus' maledictions, like his blessings, are aimed at groups ("Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," Matt 23:13ff), and even Herod was only called a fox (Luke 13:32). Peter alone is called by that harsh word, adversary, that denotes the enemy of mankind.
Once again, then, the point is not that Peter was personally uniquely holy or favored only in positive ways; he wasn't. Rather, the point is simply Peter's unique prominence, partly rooted perhaps in his own qualities for good and for ill, but also bound up in Jesus' own choice, resulting in unique privileges but also unique chastenings. "Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48): Peter is singularly blessed and singularly chastised; in either case his position is unique.
Then comes the second leading clause: "And I say to you, you are Petros." The first word, kagõ (a contraction of "And I"), is emphatic (the Greek doesn't require the explicit first-personal pronoun); Jesus underscores that it is he, the Messiah confessed by Peter, who speaks. Jesus may also be counterpointing his own words to the Father's gift to Peter; the Father has revealed Jesus' identity to Peter, and now it is the Son's turn to reveal something to Peter.
"You are Petros." Peter has told Jesus who he is ("You are the Messiah"); now Jesus tells Peter who he is. Is this merely declarative, or performative? Is Jesus making an observation, or giving Peter his new name here and now?
John 1:42 relates Jesus telling Peter at their first meeting, "You will be called Kephas," a saying that could be read as either as an enactment or as a proleptic or prophetic utterance (the future tense could mean either "from this point forward" or "at some point in the future"). In Mark 3 the list of the Twelve begins "Simon whom he surnamed Peter," but ends with "Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him" (Mark 3:15-19). Obviously Judas has not already betrayed Jesus in chapter 3; by the same token, we cannot conclude that Jesus has already surnamed Simon Peter at that point in the narrative.
The Evangelists all use the name Peter early on. In fact, John 1 refers to "Simon Peter" in verse 40, before Jesus and Peter have even met, and Matthew likewise identifies the apostle as "Simon who is called Peter" (Matt 4:18) the moment Jesus sees him, before they have spoken. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels use the name Peter from the start because that is the name readers know him by; it doesn't tell us when he first began to go by that name.
Other than John 1:42, then, there is no clear evidence of Jesus or anyone else calling Peter Kephas or Petros prior to Matthew 16:18. On the contrary, what evidence we have suggests that Jesus continued to use the name Simon (e.g., Matt 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 21:15, the late exception being Luke 22:34). The question, then, is whether Jesus' words to Peter at their meeting — "You will be called Kephas" — are grounds for concluding that henceforth the apostle began to be known by that surname.
It seems an open question. It's possible that Jesus and others began to call Simon Kephas right away, or that the surname caught on at some other point prior to Matthew 16. The Gospels offer scant evidence either way.
On the one hand, there is no indication in John 1 that anyone but Andrew heard the saying; if Jesus himself continued to use Simon's given name, it seems plausible that Peter's brother (and business partners James and John), who had always called him Simon, would similarly continue to call him the name they had always used. On the other hand, it's also plausible that Andrew might at least have told James and John about the strange saying, so that eventually all the Twelve would know the story, and Simon might start to be known as Kephas or Petros without another word from Jesus after John 1:42.
What seems certain is that Matthew 16 describes an event that would certainly have caused the surname to stick if it hadn't already. Not only is it an emphatic, present-tense pronouncement before all the Twelve, the occasion of Peter's confession is the sort of circumstance that elicits surnames from rabbis and other authorities. (For example, Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, was the surname given to Joseph of Cyprus by the apostles in Acts 4:36, possibly in connection with the act described in the next verse, i.e., laying at the apostles' feet the money from the sale of his field. Certainly he was not surnamed Barnabas out of the blue.)
It is also worth noting that the structure of verse 18 is notably similar to the texts in Genesis in which Abram, Sarai and Jacob receive their new names, followed by an exposition of the significance of the new name:
No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
I will make you exceedingly fruitful;
and I will make nations of you,
and kings shall come forth from you." (Genesis 17:5-6)
As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
I will bless her,
and moreover I will give you a son by her;
I will bless her,
and she shall be a mother of nations;
kings of peoples shall come from her. (Gen 17:15-16)
Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,
for you have striven with God and with men,
and have prevailed. (Gen 32:28)
The parallels are most striking in the case of Abraham and Sarah, where the commentary takes the form of an account of the inaugural role they will have in the new stage of God's plan of salvation. Jacob's name change also seems generally indicative of his election for the new stage in God's plan (though this point isn't explicitly drawn out in the commentary on the name).
If Jesus is not effectively renaming Peter in Matthew 16, he seems to be doing something remarkably similar. At the very least, even if Peter already went by his surname, the renewed pronouncement of the surname, in the solemn and emphatic context of the passage, seems to invest it with further significance — significance that almost goes beyond a mere surname, that is more like a new identity and a new mission. (It may even be worth noting here that Jacob's new name Israel is also given twice, in Gen 32:28 and again in Gen 35:10 — and that even after both renamings Israel also continues to be called Jacob both by the sacred writer and even by God, e.g., Gen 46:2-5, etc.)
All of this suggests that the pronouncement of Peter's new name reflects a new role in Jesus' messianic plan, one that seems to call for further explication. As previously noted, efforts have been made, especially in the past, to deny that "upon this rock" constitutes such commentary, to argue that it must refer to some distinct petra. Not until verse 19, on this reading, does Jesus say more about Peter's new role. The effect seems not unlike revising Genesis 17:5-6 to read, "No longer shall your name be Abram [exalted father], but your name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude], and I the Lord shall be exalted among the nations, and a father to my people. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful…"
If "this rock" is not Peter, what is it? There's the rub. Literarily, the demonstrative pronoun "this" implies an antecedent. Some older Protestant writers tried to float the notion that Jesus might have gestured toward himself as he said "this rock" — an exegetical conceit that would reduce Matthew's purpose to merely relating dialogue without conveying meaning (not to mention being difficult to reconcile with sola scriptura, for what that's worth). In the absence of other indication, the Gospel text clearly indicates a continuation of thought, not a change of subject.
The conjunction "and" (kai) links the second clause ("upon this rock") to the main clause ("I say to you, you are Petros"). Peter is the topic of the preceding and following verses. The connection between Petros and petra is unmistakable; even on the theory that Jesus was merely punning on Petros but talking about something else, the pun itself presupposes that Petros is the first thing we think of when we hear petra.
Petros, then, is the obvious antecedent, petra the obvious continuation of thought between "You are Petros" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Only if there were some insurmountable obstacle to identifying Petros as petra would it be feasible to set aside that connection and cast about for more remote, less obvious possible referents: Peter's confession, Peter's faith, the truth about Christ, Christ himself.
The next post will examine proposed obstacles to identifying Peter as the rock, as well as difficulties with alternate proposals. More to come.
NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
“The sole purpose of articles such as these is to advance Roman claims to the right to rule over the entire Church.”
That is a very interesting judgment. How remarkable to have such knowledge of the sole purpose of articles written by other people.
“How remarkable to have such knowledge of the sole purpose of articles written by other people.”
Yes, it is.
Such an extensive polemic in seeking to establish Rome’s perpetuated Petrine papacy evidenced that,
1. Rome did not change the Bible as Islam and Dv Vinci code theorist contend, for if she at least one command in the churches epistles to submit to Peter as its supreme head, or mention of a particular ceremony for his office to be perpetuated (such as only for elders/bishops, same office) coud easily have been added, and saved her apologists their extraordinary effects at extrapolation.
2. Rome is so destitute of the necessary substance to establish her perpetuated Petrine papacy that she must resort to such extensive attempts, seeing the Pseudo-Isidorean (False) Decretals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidore) were exposed.
The issue is not Peter’s leadership, but its manner, degree, and an perpetuation. Considering how major a doctrine Rome’s papacy is - and it is indeed major - and how faithful the Lord is to give us much evident substantiation for major doctrines (which while some dispute, have clear evidence for them) then to postulate the Roman papacy out of Mt. 16 when the Bible does not truly substantiate it, blasphemously implies neglect by the Holy Spirit! In reality, Rome’s papacy comes more from the Roman Empire and it’s Caesar - a “Caesario-Papacy”, even as Boniface basically claimed.
The responses against her attempts, like those against essential doctrines, have the consistent weight of Scripture behind them.
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=jimmy+akin
http://www.christiantruth.com /
http://www.ntrmin.org/rccorner.htm
“2. Rome is so destitute of the necessary substance to establish her perpetuated Petrine papacy that she must resort to such extensive attempts”
That’s hilarious. The very fact that the subject is considered at such length is PROOF of the dearth of evidence!!!
That’s the Canonical view of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.
I think the point is that since there isn’t biblical evidence, there was a need to create extensive FALSE evidence - assuming the rest of the poster’s sentence is important to understanding.
Of course, Papal Supremacy is based on interpreting a partial sentence, so perhaps it isn’t surprising...
***All I ask is for one scripture where Jesus plainly wills Peter to be His steward. Do that my friend and I will help you spread it to the world. ***
In wandering through the internet with Google as my staff, I happened on http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/christ-church.htm
I would ask you to read it and see if it makes sense. I’d post it but it’s a little lengthier than I normally post. Here is an excerpt:
John reports an incident that took place when Christ was with His Apostles for the third time after His resurrection. John, who was present, writes:
“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs”. A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes Lord; you know that I love you”. He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep”. (John 21: 15-17).
Peter had been asked the same question three times. So it is not surprising that: ‘Peter was grieved’. But Jesus was stressing the immense importance of the moment as He was conferring authority and responsibility on Peter.
***That’s the Canonical view of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.***
And a handful of hotheads on the Latin side (and on the Orthodox side as well) notwithstanding, that is how it is.
Mark, it’s an over-simplification of the situation with that statement. That’s NOT how it is. It’s how it should be - if Rome and the East were in Communion. They’re not.
My friend Theodoris K will correct, revise, and extend my statements here, but I think that it is important to point out (at a minimum) that Orthodox theology hasn’t changed since the Great Schism. Latin theology has undergone some innovations (the Roman take on Original Sin, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos to name but two) that the Orthodox Laity would never accept. There is historical precedent for this...I think it was the Council of Florence that the Orthodox Laity rejected flatly.
This is an overly simplifying statement, but in Orthodox Theology and Ecclesiology, it’s the Laity that are the Church and the Bride of Christ. The Clergy and Episcopacy receive their Ordinations under the Authority vested in the Apostles by Jesus Christ, but they draw their mandate from the concession of the Laity. If a large enough cry of ANAXIOS goes up, Priests and Bishops will be deposed, even defrocked.
This is a stating a few scripture references out of context along with a narrative to make a point which has no fact in scripture. Every gift or power given to the apostles was given to all decuples or believers.
Lord says to all His Apostles, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” and further after this, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain, are retained” (John 20: 22-23); or: “whatsoever ye bind upon the earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosened in heaven” (Mt.18:18)
When you add the preceeding verses to John 20, 20-21 you will see these gifts were given to all the disciples who were there. The word apostle is not used as it in your text. The power to bind and loose is given to all believers and has nothing to do with the way the church portrays it.
We as individuals have to forgive the sins committed against us by a brother before God the Father can forgive our sins against Him. If we don't forgive those sins when asked, it binds them on earth and in heaven. When those sins are bound, so are our sins against the Father and they can't be loosed/forgiven.
It has nothing to do with man forgiving sins against God for God. Only God the Father can forgive them.
Whether any of you are ever convinced that an earthly priest cannot forgive your Sins against God for God, please at least learn from this discourse how Jesus defines binding and loosing. You have to forgive sins against you before God can forgive your sins against Him.
Jesus thought it was so important He included it in the Lord's Prayer. "Father, forgive me my trespasses as I forgive those who trespass against me."
BVB
Forgive me, brother. But vain sounds about right. I’m sorry that you missed the point of an exchange between one person taking the Orthodox view of +Peter’s primacy and the other taking the Roman Catholic view.
Out of context? Take it up with St. Augustine. He wrote those words in the 5th century.
Jesus told Peter three times to tend His, Jesus' sheep. Not once did He say; "I am giving you the sheep to be yours to do with as you wish."
We are all still Christ's sheep. Not Peter's. BVB
***Mark, it’s an over-simplification of the situation with that statement. That’s NOT how it is. It’s how it should be - if Rome and the East were in Communion. They’re not.
My friend Theodoris K will correct, revise, and extend my statements here, but I think that it is important to point out (at a minimum) that Orthodox theology hasn’t changed since the Great Schism. Latin theology has undergone some innovations (the Roman take on Original Sin, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos to name but two) that the Orthodox Laity would never accept.***
Oh, I agree. The innovations are being scaled back, and the Latin Church is being force marched back towards Orthodoxy. That is why we need your help possibly more than you need ours. We need to jettison the Protestant innovations that infest us like lice.
***Mark, you have strengthened my stand.
Jesus told Peter three times to tend His, Jesus’ sheep. Not once did He say; “I am giving you the sheep to be yours to do with as you wish.” ***
And that is precisely the view of the Church. That is the meaning of steward. That is the meaning of the keys. Peter was never given authority to do as whim took him.
***We are all still Christ’s sheep. Not Peter’s. BVB***
Agreed. We have accord.
You have stated matters correctly, but you should understand that Mark was speaking of matters relating to ecclesiology which, for now, make up the subject of discussions. The innovative theology of the Latin Church cannot be dealt with without an Ecumenical Council and there will be no such council until we resolve the ecclesiology issue.
The idea is that them define themselves infallible, and infallibly define the conditions for being infallible, and infallibly define that Mt. 16 renders them infallible, thus no interpretation that contradicts that can possibly be correct, if they do say so themselves.
This is claimed to bring forth unity*, though Rome effectively accepts as members the majority of western Catholics do disagree with her, and relative little of the Bible has been infallibly defined. In addition, the criteria for infallible is imprecise enough that no infallible list of infallibly defined teachings has even been promugated. This lack is useful against arguments that the church and pope has erred or contradicted itself even in “ex cathedra” statements. Some of Rome’s most extensive reproves are those who hold to what they claim is the orthodox form of Catholicism verses Rome after V2, while others with Rome claim the political maneuvering of V1 invalidates papal infallibility. http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/roman-catholicism/RC3W0904.pdf
*An argument can also be made that evangelical denominations show their members to be more unified on essential doctrines (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html#Sec4), while their disagreements correspond to areas in which Catholics may disagree to various degrees, as relates to the ordinary and general magisteriums
>All I ask is for one scripture where Jesus plainly wills Peter to be His steward.<
That Peter was the initial leader of the apostles and church early church in Jerusalem, (Acts 5) and who overall exercised a pastoral office (1Pt. 1:1) should not be a matter of dispute. Rather, it is the type and degree and perpetuity of that office that is at dispute. Peter is manifest as a brethren type leader, and is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, nor venerated as a type of demi-god, which Rome has essentially and historically made his supposed successors. And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament, with only elder/bishops (same office: Titus 1:5-7, the division between the two was a later development) and deacons being ordained.
Apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, (Eph. 2:20) and were sovereignly called by God. In regards to the former, in addition to being men who saw the LORD, their worthiness of that title was by manifest powerful supernatural attestation, in addition to their purity and Scriptural probity. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12)
Rather than the establishment of a perpetuation of a supreme head being manifestly established or expected, what we do see is the ordination of men like Timothy, (1Tim. 4:14) and the LORD building his church using such “stones”, who like Peter, effectually confess who Christ is, and faith in Him according to the apostolic gospel of the grace of God.
***The innovative theology of the Latin Church cannot be dealt with without an Ecumenical Council and there will be no such council until we resolve the ecclesiology issue.***
And that is how I understand it as well.
***That Peter was the initial leader of the apostles and church early church in Jerusalem, (Acts 5) and who overall exercised a pastoral office (1Pt. 1:1) should not be a matter of dispute. Rather, it is the type and degree and perpetuity of that office that is at dispute. ***
The perceptions of non Catholics may be a tad off from the reality of the office.
***Peter is manifest as a brethren type leader, and is not presented or declared to be a supreme, singular infallible head, nor venerated as a type of demi-god, which Rome has essentially and historically made his supposed successors. ***
That is not the papal office as it has been created or occupied.
***And most critically, no formal provision is given in the New Testament for that particular office to be perpetuated, such as is seen in the Old Testament, with only elder/bishops (same office: Titus 1:5-7, the division between the two was a later development) and deacons being ordained.***
If the office was created, it needed to be perpetuated. Other non Scriptural writings give evidence to that fact. But even on the face of it; leadership is required in any human institution. And the Church, although the earthly Creation of Jesus, is still an institution of men.
***Rather than the establishment of a perpetuation of a supreme head being manifestly established or expected, what we do see is the ordination of men like Timothy, (1Tim. 4:14) and the LORD building his church using such “stones”, who like Peter, effectually confess who Christ is, and faith in Him according to the apostolic gospel of the grace of God.***
The only supreme head that the Catholic Church recognizes is Jesus Christ. Individual men, according to their abilities and their performance, fill their posts within the Church. Nobody thinks of the Pope as God, except perhaps those who do not understand the Church.
“I think the point is that since there isn’t biblical evidence, there was a need to create extensive FALSE evidence”
Far be it from me to claim final or certain understanding of daniel1212’s mind, but as I read it the “extensive polemic” seemed to refer to the “Petrine Fact” series.
“Of course, Papal Supremacy is based on interpreting a partial sentence”
Do you really think that’s accurate, or are you only saying it because you think it sounds good? The question is sincere, not rhetorical: I really want to know.
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.