-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Cephas?
- Thread starter chestertonrules
- Start date
- Status
Standing Up
On and on
They are connected, as Peter said, we too are living stones being built.
But as you point out, some use the designation as a, ummm, sole rock.
That's just it, though, James and John were the first and last of the apostles to die. Canon closed. No new prophecy, no new revelation, nothing left out.
If Peter is the rock/stone, the sons of thunder are the cement/mortar.
Gen. 11:3 They said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn {them} thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar.
We'll get a reunion, no doubt.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Anglian
let us love one another, for love is of God
Dear Standing Up,
Interesting, but do recall that in Aramaic 'Kefas' means stone, and Our Lord spoke Aramaic, not Greek; the Aramaic means rock, not little stone or pebble. Perhaps it was just coincidence that Our Lord called Peter 'Rock' and then said He would build His Church on that Rock - but it takes special pleading to explain away what seems pretty obvious to anyone who does not have a reason to deny the obvious.
At no point does Our Lord say that the fullness of His revelation is understood by His Apostles, and as for the canon being closed, it was not even acknowledged as a canon by the time the Blessed St. John died. The Faith was, indeed, once given, but our understanding of it has been developing ever since. The question is who offers an authoritative understanding o of that? The Church Christ founded or each of us by him or herself; having little faith in my own abilities to overcome my sinful nature by myself, I prefer to lean on the understanding of the Church.
One can accept that 'Kefas' is the Rock without accepting the modern Catholic understanding; one can also accept that understanding.
I pray, every day, that we might be one as He wants.
peace,
Anglian
Interesting, but do recall that in Aramaic 'Kefas' means stone, and Our Lord spoke Aramaic, not Greek; the Aramaic means rock, not little stone or pebble. Perhaps it was just coincidence that Our Lord called Peter 'Rock' and then said He would build His Church on that Rock - but it takes special pleading to explain away what seems pretty obvious to anyone who does not have a reason to deny the obvious.
At no point does Our Lord say that the fullness of His revelation is understood by His Apostles, and as for the canon being closed, it was not even acknowledged as a canon by the time the Blessed St. John died. The Faith was, indeed, once given, but our understanding of it has been developing ever since. The question is who offers an authoritative understanding o of that? The Church Christ founded or each of us by him or herself; having little faith in my own abilities to overcome my sinful nature by myself, I prefer to lean on the understanding of the Church.
One can accept that 'Kefas' is the Rock without accepting the modern Catholic understanding; one can also accept that understanding.
I pray, every day, that we might be one as He wants.
peace,
Anglian
Upvote
0
Standing Up
On and on
Or we could use the approach of some that Matthew was supposedly written in Hebrew and we don't have the original.
It is coincidence not to notice John 1:42: And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
This "name change" is at the beginning of our Lord's ministry when the apostles were first called. Now later on at Mt. 16:18 Jesus reiterates his name and "five verses later" calls the very same Peter/Rock Satan. Please! The point is very obvious to anyone who does not have a reason to deny the obvious.
No more canon, no new revelation, no new prophecy, nothing missing. Else the point is also obvious with which you counter, we should be LDS or one of any other group who claims new understanding.
When Ezra closed the canon of the OT, not all, obviously, agreed. Christ said first Abel to last Zechariah. Same difference, first James to last John. Canon closed, nothing missing, do not add or subtract from the book.
Your wisdom of yourself my friend would be aptly applied for the Church or is there a dual standard that you suggest? It was solely Paul who stood against Peter and Barnabas. But the wisdom of the group should surely have prevailed. Not.
As I said, if Peter is the rock, then the sons of thunder are the mortar.
Upvote
0
Anglian
let us love one another, for love is of God
Dear Standing Up,
I'm unclear whether you are saying that Jesus did not call Peter 'the Rock'; that is what we are told in Scripture and we are told that on that Rock He founded His Church. Some ECFs interpreted this as the rock of Peter's confession of faith, which is fine and a possible interpretation; only very late on in Christian history did anyone deny that the Rock was connected with Peter, either personally or in terms of Peter's faith.
I'm not sure how rebuking Peter later contradicts the interpretation that Peter is the Rock; Christ never said Peter was infallible or that His Church could do no wrong.
I'm not sure what the foundation for this statement is. Since the canon of Scripture was not fixed until the fourth century the first clause can't be true.
peace,
Anglian
I'm unclear whether you are saying that Jesus did not call Peter 'the Rock'; that is what we are told in Scripture and we are told that on that Rock He founded His Church. Some ECFs interpreted this as the rock of Peter's confession of faith, which is fine and a possible interpretation; only very late on in Christian history did anyone deny that the Rock was connected with Peter, either personally or in terms of Peter's faith.
I'm not sure how rebuking Peter later contradicts the interpretation that Peter is the Rock; Christ never said Peter was infallible or that His Church could do no wrong.
I'm not sure what the foundation for this statement is. Since the canon of Scripture was not fixed until the fourth century the first clause can't be true.
If this is reference to Revelation then do remember that that book originally existed as a discrete text and therefore the references to adding and subtracting apply to that book. It appears at the end of the Bible only by custom. The Eastern Churches, whose notion of 'canon' is less fixed in scholastic reasoning than the West, have remained less accepting of Revelation, partly on the ground that it has been a seed-bed for almost every heresy there has ever been. Its interpretation is certainly better done within the context of the teaching of the Church.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Christ founded a Church, He didn't drop off a book. That Church, inspired by the Spirit, recognised what is and is not divinely-inspired, so why should I prefer my own views to that of a two thousand year old Church founded by Christ?
peace,
Anglian
Upvote
0
heymikey80
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
He's a great example of the larger thing Jesus was getting at. And of course He intends Peter to lead the Apostles of his day.
Well, Scripture doesn't record everything Jesus said, and Jesus didn't say He was restricting the keys to Peter.
Compare the other instructions:
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Again, absence of mention isn't mention of absence.
Why'd Jesus also tell Peter alone he would deny Jesus before the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] crowed? Because Jesus had specific instructions for Peter.
Jesus knew Peter. Peter was a good friend of His. The historical succession is no Peter.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
