I did not follow the discussion yesterday, and I don't know the answer to this question. This morning I read the last few post on this page. Without knowing the line of discussion I KNEW what Reggie meant with this question and although your answer is typical Dave, it's about as evasive as you could get. Why do you do this? You would be alot more credible if you just answered questions in a straight forward manner. I know you are not stupid, quite the contrary.
I'm not stupid and neither are you or Reggie. But when he says something that is not true, or not verifiable, I will call him on it. If Reggie was making a case about Scripture, I would let his imprecise wording go.
But he wasn't. He was trying to say that the episode captured in Scripture was the "last" time Jesus spoke to Peter, and that His choice of names was somehow significant.
We know from history that if this was Jesus changing Peter's name back to Simon that Jesus failed miserably in getting his point across.
SD
"Peter" was a nickname and his contempories continued to call him by that name (with the exception of Paul who referred to him as Cephas). His birth name was Simon and that is the name Jesus used the last time recorded in Scripture. If Jesus meant "Peter" you may be certain he would have said "Peter"!
Your imagination that Jesus might have spoken to him subsequently and might have, once again, called him "Peter" is just another of your smokescreens.