The Pope

[Eliyahu]

Hi Eliyahu I originally had a response, but decided not to post it. Your mind is made up that Hebrew was the primary language and I’ve been taught otherwise from Theologians and historians that a form Hebrew dialect namely Aramaic was the primary language. I’m not saying that Hebrew was non-existence either, just not the common language.

I’ve studied both arguments for and against and the evidence in my opinion is stronger in support of what I’ve been taught.

Thanks for your input!

Thank you for your kind understanding, though you may disagree with me.

If you check the language used for NT, you may find a lot of articles which claim the Hebrew Primacy. I think the main persons for that claim are Papias and Iraeneus, both of whom mentioned Gospel Matthew was written in Hebrew. This story was quoted by Eusebius, Origen, Jerome.
There is a story that Thomas took the gospel Matthew when he went to India. It might have been translated by James, Brother of Jesus. Hebrews were written by Paul but translated by Luke into Greek.
When Jews communicated with Jews, did they have to write in Greek? I don't think so. Some epistles may have been written in Greek from the beginning, and Corinthians and Philippians may be such ones. Some may be written in Hebrew first.

ACts 26:14 I heard a voice speaking unto me in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul,...
( What was the contents of Speech in Hebrew tongue?) We lost the original contents in Hebrew now.

Jerusalemites recognized the dialect of Galileans from Peter ( Mt 26:73). If they spoke in Greek, they could have not recognized, or distinguish between Galilean Greek and Jerusalem Greek.

There are some valuable argument that the NT was written in Aramaic first. One of the crucial verses is Mt 26:6 where Jesus had a meal at Leper Simon. Lepers were not allowed to stay in the village or in a town. Moreover, there is no story that Jesus healed the Leper. One may say that the Leper Simon was healed before, but the nick name was still effective, but the man doesn't seem to be very much converted so.
If we accept the Aramaic primacy, the leper could have been Potter. Then we can easily resolve this issue.

Eunuch story in Acts 8 is also one of them as the Eunuchs ( demasculated person) were not allowed to go into temple for worship according to (Deut 23:1). If we follow Aramaic, it could be simply " MInister of Ethiopian Queen"

There are some more, but if we follow Aramaic, then we find another, bigger loss in the meaning of NT. There is the dilemma.
My understanding is that NT might have not been written in one language unanimously, but later on unified in one language. Aramaic was the language first translated from Hebrew. Jesus spoke in Aramaic in some region like Decpolis where the Aramaic influence was strong.
Overall, Hebrew was absolutely prevailing in the daily life of Jews at that time, as Josepus, the Historian, confessed that Greek was too difficult for the Jews at that time.
It might have been the providence of God that Hebrew texts are no longer available at this stage,. so that the believers should endeavor more to search for the Truth.
[FONT=돋움체][/FONT]

 

[Helen]

For those who are honestly interested in this topic, here is an excellent webpage:
http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/hebrewfirstcentury.html

I tried to research a little on Dr. Jenkins before recommending this material of his. He seems to be a nominal Christian but very universalistic in his approach, feeling other religions can also understand Christ in their own terms.... Nevertheless, although I disagree with him about that approach, I do think the material linked here is quite good regarding the time of Jesus and the languages spoken in the Israel area.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

There’s lots of websites that represents both sides very well, we just have to discern the best we can and make an informative stand with what evidence we have.

Also, Greek may have been the ‘universal’ language, but that doesn’t mean that the Jews of Jesus’ time spoke Greek fluently on the streets. English is the ‘universal’ language on the high seas, as I know because I was a navigator in the US Navy, but that didn’t mean that the ship’s crew all spoke English.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Thank you for your kind understanding, though you may disagree with me.

Hi Eliyahu, I'll get back with you tomorrow with a better reply, since you're sincere enough to formulate a well thought out response, unlike some of the typical Romaphobic members here.

 

[DHK]

Also, Greek may have been the ‘universal’ language, but that doesn’t mean that the Jews of Jesus’ time spoke Greek fluently on the streets. English is the ‘universal’ language on the high seas, as I know because I was a navigator in the US Navy, but that didn’t mean that the ship’s crew all spoke English.

Jesus spoke to the masses of the people, not just to the Jews; ergo: Greek.
The NT manuscripts are all in Greek. Conclusion--Greek.
The originals were written in Greek. The inspired canon is in Greek. That is what we have to work with. Our sole source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Greek manuscripts from whence the translations of our Bibles come from.

 

[av1611jim]

And all of this is moot if one knows his history very well at all.

If there is a succession of Popes, then which of the three during the Great Schism is the right one?


"things that make you go....hmmmmmm"

 

[Agnus_Dei]

John states that these were Hebrew sayings. Why question him? They were Hebrew sayings on the cross, and he gives the translations of them.

Here’s your problem DHK, [personal attack removed.]

I never question St. John, I stated that Aramaic was such a common language that people obviously per John 19:13, 17 referred to Aramaic as ‘Hebrew’. Do a little research DHK for yourself and you’ll discover quite easily that the words; ‘Golgotha’ and ‘Gabbatha’ John spoke of are of ARAMAIC origin.

Please keep your ‘opinions’ to yourself and please present to the class a why these words aren’t of Aramaic origin, other than “well that’s what the bible says”.

[Moderator's Warning: The BB Posting Rules, to which you agreed, require you to show grace to your fellow posters at all times. Likewise, the BB rules forbid you from making personal attacks (i.e. using unkind language or name calling) against your fellow posters. Debate the issues without attacking the person holding the opposing view. Failure to abide by these rules will result in a 10-day suspension of your BB membership.]

 

[Eliyahu]

As Josephus mentioned the most of Jews hated Greek culture even though they might have to accept it for official communication because of the political pressure, because Jews considered Greek full of myths, spoken by pork meat eating people, full of idolatry.

So, we can see that Jesus was talking about Hebrew Bible ( Mt 5:18, 23:35, Luke 24:44).
On top fo the Cross, the title was written in Hebrew. Why was it written in Hebrew? because many people could read Hebrew? Were they Romans? No. Were they Greek? Nope! Were they Syrian? Nope!
Jews could read Hebrew. Peter spoke in Galilean Dialect. Was it Galilean dialect of Latin? No! Was it Galilean dialect of Greek ? Nope! Was there distincition between Galilee Aramaic and Jerusalem Aramaic? Nope!

Why does John say Gabbatha in Hebrew ( John 19:13) in the Hebrew Golgotha ( John 19:17) ?

Why did Jesus speak to Paul in Hebrew?

Acts 26:
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,

Why did Paul deliver a speech in Hebrew to the crowd of Jerusalem?

Acts 21:40
Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Acts 22:2
And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith


Should we trust the human writings more than the Bible?

Why did the coins used during Bar-Korba Revolt have the inscriptions in Hebrew? Isn't it normal that the commonly used language is written on the coins?

When Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew, did Paul translate it into Greek immediately?

How did the thousands of Jerusalem people understand the speech by Paul in Hebrew?

Golgotha was Hebrew used in 2Kings 9:35( Jezebel), 1 Chr 10:10 ( Saul's head), Judges 9:53, Exodus 16:16 ( omer per capita)
This type of Hebrew was originated from Aramaic, but was completely localized and become Hebrew.

However, there are several Aramaic which was purely Aramaic at that time, such as Tali-tacumi, Ephata, Eli Eli Lama Sabachtani, but these were not many. Actually many people could not understand Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani.

I am quite sure that Hebrew was the main language in Israel in 1c and moreover for the religious life and worship service, Bible discussions, Hebrew was absolutely main tool of communication.

It is likely that the Saints in Antioch did greatly for the translation and compilation later on.

 

[DHK]

Here’s your problem DHK, [personal attack removed.]

I never question St. John, I stated that Aramaic was such a common language that people obviously per John 19:13, 17 referred to Aramaic as ‘Hebrew’. Do a little research DHK for yourself and you’ll discover quite easily that the words; ‘Golgotha’ and ‘Gabbatha’ John spoke of are of ARAMAIC origin.

Please keep your ‘opinions’ to yourself and please present to the class a why these words aren’t of Aramaic origin, other than “well that’s what the bible says”.

[Moderator's Warning: The BB Posting Rules, to which you agreed, require you to show grace to your fellow posters at all times. Likewise, the BB rules forbid you from making personal attacks (i.e. using unkind language or name calling) against your fellow posters. Debate the issues without attacking the person holding the opposing view. Failure to abide by these rules will result in a 10-day suspension of your BB membership.]

The question you must answer, is not why he used them on the cross, but why he translated them for the common person to be able to understand them. Each time he gives a Hebraic phrase he gives the meaning of it in the Greek language. Why is that? Because both the manuscript of John's gospel, and the language commonly spoken, was koine Greek--common Greek--the Greek of the common person.
Hebrew had almost faded out of existence. It was read in the synagogues, for it was the sacred language of the Jews. It was understood but rarely spoken. The Masoretic Text was written in Hebrew. A related language was Aramaic. It was more common than Hebrew, but not the most common language. It would be spoken only among the Jews. The lingua franca of the day was Greek. It was the universal language of the day, the language that Alexander the Great left the world. Everyone, everywhere spoke Greek--from the slave to the Emperor. Everyone. Latin was the official language, a language that had to be known for it emanatied from Rome where the government was. All official documents were signed in Latin. Thus the Jews knew many languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and possibly some more depending upon which area of the world they lived in. Check Acts chapter two for that answer. "How hear we every man in the "language" wherein we were born." They were not dumb people.
They spoke Greek as the common language. The manuscripts are written in Greek. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. You cannot argue with God. God inspired His Word in Greek. That much we know. If you want to discuss Scripture you must do it from the Greek, not from any other language, unless the context gives direct reference, as it does in the occasional expression that John gives--in which he also gives the Greek translation.

 

[donnA]

Seems you are already rcc since you are already misleading what scripture says, beleivieng lies over scripture.

 

[Eliyahu]

In any case, either the NT was written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, Papacy cannot be justified, Peter cannot be the first Pope. He never claimed so, but called himself as one of the elders ( 1 Peter 5:1). He was rebuked by Paul ( Gal 2:14) Can anyone rebuke the Pope today?

Why does nobody rebuke Pope when he said he respects Muslims?
Do all Catholics respect Muslims? In other words, Roman Catholics respect Muslims and are learning from them ? Papcy is ridiculous as the history proves.
Read the story about Pope Alexander 6.

 

[Claudia_T]

In any case, either the NT was written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, Papacy cannot be justified, Peter cannot be the first Pope. He never claimed so, but called himself as one of the elders ( 1 Peter 5:1). He was rebuked by Paul ( Gal 2:14) Can anyone rebuke the Pope today?

Why does nobody rebuke Pope when he said he respects Muslims?
Do all Catholics respect Muslims? In other words, Roman Catholics respect Muslims and are learning from them ? Papcy is ridiculous as the history proves.
Read the story about Pope Alexander 6.

not to mention the gates of hell prevailed against Peter when he denied Christ... upon this Rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it

 

[stan the man]

Papal Primacy and Succession

Again, I suggest the fact that Simon is the Rock. I should say a few things along these lines because I mentioned that I have these Protestant quotes. I have note cards that I actually put together when I was preparing a paper on the subject. I was taking a class on the Gospel of Matthew and the professor was a Protestant. He was a Lutheran and he knew what I wanted to do for my project and so I presented this paper, "Peter and the Keys" and I worked at it because I knew that he might not be open to my conclusions, that I knew what my conclusions were going to be at the end of my research. They were rather Catholic, neither Baptist nor Lutheran.

So, I worked and worked and I put these notecards together and when I made the presentation — I should add, this was a very interesting experience because all the other students who presented papers, the professor encouraged the rest of the students to interact with the presenter. And he seldom, if ever asked questions in interacting. He wanted the students to get involved. But when it came to presenting a paper presenting the evidence that Peter is the Rock and that the keys denote succession and that the Catholic position is right, not one student spoke up for the entire presentation. He did all the talking and we even went over. I ended up leaving the classroom like forty-five minutes after the class was supposed to end. It was the most grueling cross-examination I'd ever undergone, and I might add, I had intestinal digestive problems for about a week afterwards because of how nerve-wracking it was.

But at the end of the whole ordeal he said, "I think your paper is flawless. The only fault that I found is that you have the middle initial on one person's name in one of your footnotes wrong!" He said, "I think your arguments are persuasive, too. I'm just grateful that I don't think that Matthew is historically reliable, so I don't have to follow the conclusions."

 

[stan the man]

Papal Primacy and Succession

I believe that Protestants are often ready to admit the fact that Peter is the Rock and that the keys of succession are given to him to imply an office that will be filled by successors. For instance, one of the top evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment." What is France saying? Well, many scholars have suggested that Jesus could not have given this gift to Peter. Jesus could not have given this original saying. Why? Because many scholars don't believe that Jesus foresaw the building of the Church. They think that all of these sayings of Jesus concerning the Church were added later by the Church to support whatever had happened to the Church.

Dr. France says, "That's just not tenable." When you study this you realize that all of the evidence in the text shows that this is one of the original sayings of Jesus. He goes on to say, "Jesus' beatitude of Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader." He goes on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church."

This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says, "The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." He says, "It is only Protestant over-reaction to the Roman Catholic claim, of course, which has no foundation in the text, that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later Bishops of Rome." In other words France is saying, "We can't apply this to the Popes, the later Bishops of Rome." I'll overthrow that opinion later, I think, but France is very candid in saying, "Look, it's only because we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the Church."

 

[DHK]

But at the end of the whole ordeal he said, "I think your paper is flawless. The only fault that I found is that you have the middle initial on one person's name in one of your footnotes wrong!" He said, "I think your arguments are persuasive, too. I'm just grateful that I don't think that Matthew is historically reliable, so I don't have to follow the conclusions."

So what are you trying to tell us? You are a good orator? A persuasive speaker? But in the end you have no real facts to base your arguments on.

 

[JamieinNH]

I have to agree with DHK,

In this whole thread, I was beginning to wonder if stan the man was a hit and run poster. He hadn't posted in this thread he started in a few days, and then when he does return, he only want you to read what he has, he hasn't responded to anything in the perivous posts.

Oh well...

Jamie

 

[stan the man]

Papal Primacy and Succession

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this — W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles."

Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

By the way, I do not find hardly any Catholic defenders of the faith these days with awareness of this particular point. This was the point above all points for me. It was the point that the defenders of the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of, but for some reason amnesia has set in upon many defenders and interpreters not aware of how crucial this particular passage is. In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.

What's happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, "I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David."

My internet connection is really slow, so I will try back later.

 

[JamieinNH]

Ah, it would seem that stan the man IS only here to present his views on others...

What is the internet name they call people like that?

My internet connection is really slow, so I will try back later.

thank goodness.. Drop and go on a slow internet connection is much better for us.

Jamie

 

[DHK]

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this — W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles."

Albright is a Liberal, thus I don't put much stock in what he says. It seems that he has cozied up pretty much to what the Catholics have already said many times before. As the Bible says: "There is nothing new under the sun."

1. Jesus does not use Aramaic. Prove it if he does. Where is your evidence? This is just imaginary thinking without any facts. We asked you to present facts--not vain imagination. The lingua franca of the day was Greek. The manuscripts were written in Greek. I can show you my Greek NT if you wish--a far-removed copy of the original.

2. Peter is not the foundation of the church. Christ is. He is the chief cornerstone. He is the rock of our salvation. He is the rock of offence upon which the unsaved stumble. Over and over again he is referred to as the chief cornerstone. It is not Peter; it is Christ.

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1 Peter 2:7 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,

Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

Again, this is typical Catholic theology. I have heard it all before. It is not Protestant at all. Trying to read into Scripture things that are not there is despicable. This Isaiah passage has nothing to do with Peter. It is a typical Catholic way of justifying man-made doctrines.

The keys of the kingdom are given to all the disciples. It is the old fashioned message of the gospel. Every believer has that key, not just Peter or any of the popes--but every believer.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The same so-called "key" was given to all the disciples just two chapters later. It was not given to just Peter only.

Now let's just stop here and ask, "What is he talking about?" I think it's simple. Albright is saying that Jesus in giving to Peter not only a new name, Rock, but in entrusting to Simon the keys of the kingdom, He is borrowing a phrase from Isaiah 22. He's quoting a verse in the Old Testament that was extremely well known. This, for me, was the breakthrough. This discovery was the most important discovery of all. Let's go back to Isaiah 22 and see what Jesus was doing when He entrusted to Peter the keys of the kingdom.

As I said, Albright's opinion is not worth much. This has nothing to do with Isaiah 22, and there is no proof that he is quoting it. Where is your evidence? Is your only evidence: Albright says this, and Albright says that? Why not just plagiarize?

By the way, I do not find hardly any Catholic defenders of the faith these days with awareness of this particular point.

You haven't looked very hard. When the Catholic epologists came to this board they put up this strawman all the time.

This was the point above all points for me. It was the point that the defenders of the Catholic faith in the 16th and 17th Centuries were very aware of, but for some reason amnesia has set in upon many defenders and interpreters not aware of how crucial this particular passage is. In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.

Show or demonstrate where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 22. You haven't done that yet.

What's happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, "I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David."

And did Jesus say anything about the House of Judah? Eliakim? Hilkiah? I think not!

 

[Eliyahu]

Again, I suggest the fact that Simon is the Rock.

How could God build His Eternal Church on the fragile, feeble, corruptible human being?

Have you read my post?
Actually Deut 32:15, 18 talk about Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ as the Rock of Salvation.
Nowdays, people invent many ways to shake this Rock.

Rock'N Roll: The Rock is rolling because they shake!
Rolling Stone: The True Stone is rolling!
Easy(EZ) Rock : Less Talk More Music, (We don't want to hear Gospel any more! shut upt and then listen to the pagan, sexy music!)

Satan continues to shake this True Rock!

That coincides with the historical effort by Roman Catholic, that the church was not built on the True Rock, Jesus Christ, but was built upon human tradition and the human being Peter!

Any denial of Jesus Christ as the True Rock works against God of Salvation and Jesus Christ, the True Rock, Our Shield and Rock where we can hide ourselves.

Watch out whereupon you stand !