I already explained to you in post #80 that you mischaracterized my argument. You ignored that. Try reading it again for comprehension, because your response in post #85 bears no coherent resemblance to what took place. Hint: I never said "singlehandedly."
I understand you stated that right afterwards. However, that does not mitigate the emphatic language used in your initial description of the passage.
and your continued emphasis on Peter's speech belies your protestation.
If it's not hard evidence, why do you keep insisting that yours is the only reading that makes any sense?
And I'm not trying to discredit you at all, much less 'very hard'; I don't see any need to do so.
No, it's not. An opinion is much more forcefully stated.
Yes, you are. Your response makes that quite evident. I disagree that Peter is consciously asserting any authority whatsoever.
Why did the feeding of the 5,000 need to be mentioned more than one time? Why did the crucifixion need to be mentioned more than one time? Important concepts tend to be repeated.
Seriously though, only 'one' person received the keys, so it makes sense that they were only mentioned once. I'm willing to grant that they may not have been that big an issue at the time, in the same way that a polio outbreak wouldn't have been considered an immediate issue in Poland during Nazi occupation.
No, you haven't. You've made some assertions regarding the keys, but have yet to provide an iota of support other than a vague reference to Is. 22. You haven't even divulged the other alleged powers of the keys, much less proved them.
If the keys are in Jesus' hands, then the power invested in them is not delegated.
And it would be nice if you would at least attempt to explain why the powers invested in those keys are appropriately given to Peter.
Comment