Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas?

[Mikeb85]

Well, at least you tried!

I like St. Augustine's answer better:

"Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."
Sermons 295,2, 391 A.D.

St. Augustine also addresses this in his retractions:

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...
But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

 

[Danya]

St. Augustine also addresses this in his retractions:

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...
But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

I added the red for emphasis.

Thanks Mike

I love how some catholics love to quote Augustine

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=51259841&postcount=9

but disregard what he had thought and written later on in life

 

[BigNorsk]

Why did Jesus change Simon's name?

Why did Jesus give Peter alone the keys to the Kingdom?

Why did Jesus tell Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and to feed his sheep?

Evidently to strengthen Peter.

That is a mistaken notion based on the word for keys only being used in that passage, if we get away from simply searching for the word key, we see easily that the keys were given to all the Apostles and indeed later to all believers.

Because Peter needed to hear it.

Marv

 

[Uphill Battle]

I added the red for emphasis.

I love how some catholics love to quote Augustine

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=51259841&postcount=9

but disregard what he had thought and written later on in life

that's the inevitable problem with quoting snippits to prove your point.... contradictory information has to be completely ignored.


I think this portion is very telling.

But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."

how utterly un-Catholic!

 

[cyberlizard]

Why did Jesus change Saul's name to Paul? (Answer in Acts.)

Why does Jesus still hold the keys in Revelation? (Answer in Revelation.)

Why did Jesus tell Paul to feed His sheep and to whom did he pass on the instruction? (Answer in Acts.)

To whom did Peter then feed and pass on the instruction? (The answer is in 1 Peter.)

where?

 

[bbbbbbb]

According to the bible, Jesus gave the keys to Peter alone.

The keys, like those in Isaiah 22, would be passed to a successor.

That's the point.

And that successor would have been Paul? Many of your fellow Catholics are fond of using passages from I and II Cornithiains in regard to the man married to his step-mother to demonstrate the use of the keys (because they have no examples of Peter using the keys anywhere in the Bible). If so, that would mean that Paul somehow obtained these keys - while Peter was still alive! As I recall it was many centuries later that the Catholic Church proclaimed a pope as Pope Paul I.

 

[Standing Up]

Acts 13:2-9 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work (Acts 9:15) whereunto I have called them. ... Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,

Name change from his Hebrew Saul to Gentile Paul to work the work for which he had been called. Paul means little or small like Peter means little or small (rock).

Why did Jesus rename the two others sons of thunder?

 

[Anglian]

So I assume your position is that Peter was head of the apostles, but that this position did not have successors.

Is this correct?

Dear Chestertonrules,

Not quite. I do find the dancing around the obvious sense of the text a little amusing, especially when the RCC gets accused of doing that by some who do it on this occasion

I have no doubt St. Peter was the head of the Apostles, nor that his successors in Rome were recognised by the early Church as having a primacy of honour. The evidence that my own Church (Alexandria) and others appealed to Rome for help on matters of doctrinal dispute is clear; without Rome's help St. Athanasius would never have prevailed.

Where my Church would diverge from your own is over the definition of what a primacy of honour means. We do not think it gives the Bishop of Rome universal jurisdiction, neither do we see the early Church saying he was infallible on anything. If the Pope in Rome had the same powers as he had when we parted company with the Chalcedonians (451) then we'd have no trouble with accepting him as the senior bishop in the Church and one whose opinion should never be lightly ignored.

In demanding more than that, the Bishops of Rome have, in our view, lost that which they had from a once united Christendom. But perhaps we have failed to properly understand the Petrine claims and they really area devloped understanding of the situation back then?

Either way, in terms of the OP, those who deny that Peter was the rock need to explain why Christ called him that.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-

I have no doubt St. Peter was the head of the Apostles, nor that his successors in Rome were recognised by the early Church as having a primacy of honour. -snip-

Well, we clearly know that Peter, James, and John were the three that were renamed and witnessed the transfiguration, etc. Three-legged stool, can we say?

-snip-

Either way, in terms of the OP, those who deny that Peter was the rock need to explain why Christ called him that.

peace,

Anglian

There's numerous replies that have been made countless times. Incidentally, Paul means little also.

IMO, the more important question is why were the other two named sons of Thunder? See my new thread for commentary.

 

[chestertonrules]

Dear Chestertonrules,

Not quite. I do find the dancing around the obvious sense of the text a little amusing, especially when the RCC gets accused of doing that by some who do it on this occasion

I have no doubt St. Peter was the head of the Apostles, nor that his successors in Rome were recognised by the early Church as having a primacy of honour. The evidence that my own Church (Alexandria) and others appealed to Rome for help on matters of doctrinal dispute is clear; without Rome's help St. Athanasius would never have prevailed.

Where my Church would diverge from your own is over the definition of what a primacy of honour means. We do not think it gives the Bishop of Rome universal jurisdiction, neither do we see the early Church saying he was infallible on anything. If the Pope in Rome had the same powers as he had when we parted company with the Chalcedonians (451) then we'd have no trouble with accepting him as the senior bishop in the Church and one whose opinion should never be lightly ignored.

In demanding more than that, the Bishops of Rome have, in our view, lost that which they had from a once united Christendom. But perhaps we have failed to properly understand the Petrine claims and they really area devloped understanding of the situation back then?

Either way, in terms of the OP, those who deny that Peter was the rock need to explain why Christ called him that.

peace,

Anglian

Thank you. A couple of questions come to mind:

Do you think that a single Bishop should have the final vote on doctrinal disputes?


Are you optimistic about reunification in our life times?

 

[chestertonrules]

Acts 13:2-9 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work (Acts 9:15) whereunto I have called them. ... Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,

Name change from his Hebrew Saul to Gentile Paul to work the work for which he had been called. Paul means little or small like Peter means little or small (rock).

Jesus didn't change his name. Sorry.

Why did Jesus rename the two others sons of thunder?

Sons of thunder is not a name.

Can you cite and instance where they were called by this name?

What if they were not together? Son A and Son B?

 

[Danya]

Sons of thunder is not a name.

Can you cite and instance where they were called by this name?

What if they were not together? Son A and Son B?

There were named that at the same time Simon was named Peter

Mark 3:16-17

KJV
And Simon he surnamed Peter;
And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

ESV
He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);

 

[chestertonrules]

There were named that at the same time Simon was named Peter

Mark 3:16-17

KJV
And Simon he surnamed Peter;
And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

ESV
He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);

I know that.

We know that from this point on Simon was called Peter.

Were James and John ever called anything other than James and John?

 

[Uphill Battle]

know that.

We know that from this point on Simon was called Peter.

Were James and John ever called anything other than James and John?

I'm sure they were referred to Colloquially as Boanerges frequently.

it doesn't really matter much.

And btw, Peter was refered to as Simon, who was called Peter on occasion in scripture. you're premise that he was always called Peter afterwards, is false.

Let's look at the record. In Matthew he is refered to as as Simon, who was called Peter, a number of times.

Also, check Mark 14:37 you find Christ calling him Simon again.

Luke 24:34 shows them using the moniker Simon again. (unless you want to try and assert they were referring to Simon the zealot at this point.)

John 21, Christ refers to him yet again as Simon, not Peter.

James calls him simply Simon in Acts 15.

I think much ado is made about the "name change" when in fact, his name remained Simon, who was CALLED Peter. sounds far more like a nickname than an official name change!

 

[chestertonrules]

I'm sure they were referred to Colloquially as Boanerges frequently.

it doesn't really matter much.

And btw, Peter was refered to as Simon, who was called Peter on occasion in scripture. you're premise that he was always called Peter afterwards, is false.

Let's look at the record. In Matthew he is refered to as as Simon, who was called Peter, a number of times.

Also, check Mark 14:37 you find Christ calling him Simon again.

Luke 24:34 shows them using the moniker Simon again. (unless you want to try and assert they were referring to Simon the zealot at this point.)

John 21, Christ refers to him yet again as Simon, not Peter.

James calls him simply Simon in Acts 15.

I think much ado is made about the "name change" when in fact, his name remained Simon, who was CALLED Peter. sounds far more like a nickname than an official name change!

Keep reaching....!

 

[Anglian]

Thank you. A couple of questions come to mind:

Do you think that a single Bishop should have the final vote on doctrinal disputes?


Are you optimistic about reunification in our life times?

Dear Chestertonrules,
It would be useful if someone referenced Cephas and 'this is the rock' and explained why the two are NOT connected. Had Our Lord said 'And by this Thunder I establish my Church' then one might reasonably claim that changing the names of James and John had a significance relating to the nature of the Church; but He didn't. He talked about a 'rock', having called Peter 'Rock'.

On the whole I would rather have the method the Apostles used at Jerusalem, which is God's servants listening to each other and coming to a solution guided by the Spirit; voting leads to splits. My own view, which is worth little, is that it would be better if the Pope in Rome retained the respect of all bishops who would defer to him when in doubt.

Reunion? If only. 1600 years of history are not, alas, overcome in a hundred, but if we are open to the Spirit, it will come. Our job, in our own huble way, is not to be obstacles to it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Uphill Battle]

Keep reaching....!

keep avoiding! don't let silly little things like facts get in the way.

 

[chestertonrules]

n

 

[sunlover1]

There were named that at the same time Simon was named Peter

Mark 3:16-17

KJV
And Simon he surnamed Peter;
And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

ESV
He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);

Let's look at the record. In Matthew he is refered to as as Simon, who was called Peter, a number of times.

Also, check Mark 14:37 you find Christ calling him Simon again.

Luke 24:34 shows them using the moniker Simon again. (unless you want to try and assert they were referring to Simon the zealot at this point.)

John 21, Christ refers to him yet again as Simon, not Peter.

James calls him simply Simon in Acts 15.

I think much ado is made about the "name change" when in fact, his name remained Simon, who was CALLED Peter. sounds far more like a nickname than an official name change!

Thank you both for digging.
I'm sure that this is helpful for some lurkers.
I know it helped me. I just answered the
OP without even considering that it was
a false premise.

Blessings,
sunlover

 

[Uphill Battle]

ah, and now the cricket chirp of issue abandonment.

*sniff *sniff

do I smell a similar topic thread being started soon? Same topic, same premise, slightly different name, to give it another good ol' college try? (right up until refutation of said points, and then it's lather rinse repeat."


internet apologist argument # 1: when refuted, best recourse is