The Telephone Game

[Ligurian]

"Luke doesn't know anyone named Cephas, but calls Paul's Cephas of Galatians 2:9, the name Peter, in Acts 15:7.

No; Luke doesn't call Peter by the name Cephas.

That's backwards from what I said.

Multiple men, same name.NT ... post #217
Why did the Lord come to the earth?

 

[Ligurian]

Very similar to what's been presented to me by SDAs and other such types of sects and individuals who have set themselves apart from the rest of Christianity.

Have you even wondered how all the people here, who are members of the sub-forums, might react to what you've said about the "unorthodox" "set apart" "fringe"?

 

[Vap841]

Because Jesus' Disciples isn't where the circle ends. Step three is those who heard the message from the Disciples...

Why is this a problem? You can’t be great at spotting counterfeit bills unless you know authentic bills very well. There’s a reason why we know the history of various Christian heresies.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Have you even wondered how all the people here, who are members of the sub-forums, might react to what you've said about the "unorthodox" "set apart" "fringe"?

I haven't had to since I've said it wherever I considered it applicable. If it's not mainstream or mainline orthodox, then it falls into the realm of unorthodox, set apart and fringe. That's just the way it is. I've also used terms like homespun, self-styled and made-up where applicable.

 

[Vap841]

History is a set of lies agreed upon...

Unless you are one of those people who call ALL history unreliable bunk (I know some of these people) then this statement undercuts your own position for which histories you consider to be valid.

History is a set of lies agreed upon...
History is like archaeology, where they went to find the Hittites, found their site, and slapped the Hittite label on the top-layer... the conquerers of the Hittites.

Any time someone explains how history is incorrect, and then “Corrects it” they are simply confirming the difference between taking history at face value vs scrutinizing history to get behind surface level appearances, and getting to the truth.

This reminds me of when people used to tell me that history is unreliable, and would give me the example that Babe Ruth actually did not point out his Home Run. But they just defeat their own claim since they proceed to tell me how they know this because they historically scrutinized the situation and got to the truth.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Where did I say I believe that the Peter and John epistles are the Gospel of the Kingdom? If they exist, then I need to drag those thread up to the top and openly repent of those as bits well.

Because, right now, today... this is what I believe:

Only Matthew, John and Revelation count. Got it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Another perfect example of how and why The Telephone Game goes awry. Some guy forgets that he's actually following the Pauline Theology, where anathemas are called down up anyone who follows... what turns out to be the Kingdom Gospel, being taught by 1 Peter 1:1... in Galatia. Pretty soon everyone forgets that the Philippians were calling the circumcision dogs... having long forgotten Galatians 2:7-9... if they ever remembered seeing it at all.

And someone also forgot that he called the few an unorthodox fringe.

The anathemas were things like Gnosticism and Judaizing, not what was written by Matthew and John (whom you say are the sole authors of the Gospel of the Kingdom / Kingdom Gospel via Matthew, John and Revelation).

 

[Ceallaigh]

= What you say, "about what say the Bible says about Christians who don't [follow the Gospel of the Kingdom]."

Perfect example of The Telephone Game gone awry. Thank you.

That doesn't make any sense, since I quoted your text. Textual quoting can't be compared to the "telephone game" unless someone purposely edits what you wrote. And like you said yourself, what you are saying in text is unintelligible.

Ligurian said: ↑
You really don't know what I'm saying... at all... ever...

 

[Ceallaigh]

That's backwards from what I said.

Multiple men, same name.NT ... post #217
Why did the Lord come to the earth?

Have you ever considered that people not understanding what you're saying is your fault?

 

[Strong in Him]

That's backwards from what I said.

The Apostle Peter is sometimes called by the name Cephas.
I was agreeing with you that Luke does not use that name for him. That is not the same as saying that "Luke didn't know anyone called Cephas" - how do you know?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Peter Πέτρος (Pétros), from πέτρος (pétros, “stone, rock”)
Cephas Κηφᾶς (Kēphâs), from Aramaic כֵּיפָא‎/Classical Syriac ܟܐܦܐ‎ (kēp̄ā, “stone, rock”).

The names are interchangeable. Like John/Jack Kennedy.

 

[Strong in Him]

Peter Πέτρος (Pétros), from πέτρος (pétros, “stone, rock”)
Cephas Κηφᾶς (Kēphâs), from Aramaic כֵּיפָא‎/Classical Syriac ܟܐܦܐ‎ (kēp̄ā, “stone, rock”).

Thanks.
I discovered that they meant the same thing, but wasn't sure of the languages.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Thanks.
I discovered that they meant the same thing, but wasn't sure of the languages.

It looks to me like Cephas is the Aramaic version, and Luke would probably be more inclined to use Peter which is the Greek version. As you probably know, other disciples in the NT are referred to by two names depending on whether the author is using the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic version. Such as Matthew also being called Levi. Or even three names, when a compound name like Simon Peter is involved.

 

[Ligurian]

It looks to me like Cephas is the Aramaic version, and Luke would probably be more inclined to use Peter which is the Greek version. As you probably know, other disciples in the NT are referred to by two names depending on whether the author is using the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic version. Such as Matthew also being called Levi. Or even three names, when a compound name like Simon Peter is involved.

Luke was Paul's biographer... They both use Greek words that are never used by the Galileans. The same may be said about their idioms.

 

[Ligurian]

Peter Πέτρος (Pétros), from πέτρος (pétros, “stone, rock”)
Cephas Κηφᾶς (Kēphâs), from Aramaic כֵּיפָא‎/Classical Syriac ܟܐܦܐ‎ (kēp̄ā, “stone, rock”).

The names are interchangeable. Like John/Jack Kennedy.

Not really.

Thanks.
I discovered that they meant the same thing, but wasn't sure of the languages.

Try Strong's. It not only tells you what language was being used from where, but tells you what sized mineral is being described... Stone doesn't mean a piece of rock or mass of rock.

4074 Petros = apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock.
4073 petra = feminine of the same as Petros; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock.
3037 lithos = apparently a primary word; a stone (literally or figuratively):--(mill-, stumbling-)stone.

Luke was Paul's biographer... They both use Greek words that are never used by the Galileans. The same may be said about their idioms.

Is there a problem with that?

Not for me, since it helps tell who wrote what.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Luke was Paul's biographer... They both use Greek words that are never used by the Galileans. The same may be said about their idioms.

Is there a problem with that?

 

[Ligurian]

"Luke doesn't know anyone named Cephas, but calls Paul's Cephas of Galatians 2:9, the name Peter, in Acts 15:7... while Act's James calls Luke's Peter the name Simeon, in Acts 15:14."

Luke doesn't call Peter by the name Cephas.

That's backwards from what I said.

The Apostle Peter is sometimes called by the name Cephas.
I was agreeing with you that Luke does not use that name for him. That is not the same as saying that "Luke didn't know anyone called Cephas" - how do you know?

"Luke didn't know anyone called Cephas" is a literary device... meaning he never mentioned anyone named Cephas.

I suspect that where one sees Aramaic/Chaldean/Syriac in Matthew or John, it started off as a marginal note: scribes were known to copy them into the body of the text... the more careful ones placed those notes in (brackets).

 

[Ligurian]

Have you ever considered that people not understanding what you're saying is your fault?

Do you mean act like I'm talking to people from Saturn, rather than to people from Jupiter? Is it Jupiter's people who are at fault for not knowing the Saturn language? What if they were insulted because I was patronizing them by speaking the universal language of Neptune?

 

[Ligurian]

That doesn't make any sense, since I quoted your text. Textual quoting can't be compared to the "telephone game" unless someone purposely edits what you wrote. And like you said yourself, what you are saying in text is unintelligible.

Go back up the thread and check it out: I didn't say anything... I only quoted.

 

[Ligurian]

Another perfect example of how and why The Telephone Game goes awry. Some guy forgets that he's actually following the Pauline Theology, where anathemas are called down up anyone who follows... what turns out to be the Kingdom Gospel, being taught by 1 Peter 1:1... in Galatia. Pretty soon everyone forgets that the Philippians were calling the circumcision dogs... having long forgotten Galatians 2:7-9... if they ever remembered seeing it at all.

And someone also forgot that he called the few an unorthodox fringe.

The anathemas were things like Gnosticism and Judaizing,

not what was written by Matthew and John (whom you say are the sole authors of the Gospel of the Kingdom / Kingdom Gospel via Matthew, John and Revelation).

If by Judaizing, you mean Acts 15:20, then Galatians 2:7-9 applies.
Gnosticism, Strong's 1108. ... Anathema, Strong's 331.

This part is written around you, since you don't understand me.--:
______________________________________
The Father is the author of the Kingdom Gospel. (John 12:49-50, John 7:16, Deuteronomy 18:18-19) Jesus spoke the Father's words to the men given to Him by the Father, and these men kept His word (John 17:6). And because they were with Him from the beginning (John 15:26-27), they are His witnesses for the Gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus began to teach to them when He found them in Galilee (Matthew 4:12-17). And Matthew 28:16-20 says this is what they would continue to teach to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel which are still scattered among the nations, and these would be the "other sheep" of John 10:16.