why was Peter's name changed?

[MoNiCa4316]

I have a question for non Catholics.

If you don't believe that Peter was 'the rock'...

why did Christ change his name to 'rock'?

I'm asking because God does everything for a reason.

If the 'rock' is actually Peter's confession...why change his name?? why not just leave it as it is?

This is a serious question and I'm actually interested in what you'd say.

Any ideas?

God bless
monica

 

[calluna]

I have a question for non Catholics.

If you don't believe that Peter was 'the rock'...

why did Christ change his name to 'rock'?

To show that even the most unstable person can be used by God, if there is faith in the Rock.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

To show that even the most unstable person can be used by God, if there is faith in the Rock.

it is true that God can use anyone who believes in Him, yet how do you know that was the reason Peter's name was changed? Is there any evidence for this, like in the Bible?
If Peter is not the rock, what is the point in calling him 'the rock'? In the language they spoke...it would not have sounded like a name, but like Jesus was actually calling Peter by that word - the rock.

 

[BigNorsk]

Sure Peter is a rock, a little rock. Not the great foundation rock of the faith. It's really quite a play on words, the modern equivalent would be to say Peter was a chip off the old block.

So Peter's name was changed to a little rock.

Don't make too much of that.

Marv

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Marv- but my question is, Why Christ does everything for a reason...

let's look at the other times God changed people's names in the Bible...

When God gave someone a new name is was usually to establish a new identity. God changed Abram’s "high father" name to Abraham "father of multitude" (Genesis 17:5). God changed Jacob’s "supplanter" name to Israel “having power with God” (Genesis 32:28). He changed Simon’s "God has heard" name to Peter "rock" (John 1:42). Why did Jesus occasionally call Peter “Simon” after He had changed His name to Peter? My guess is that Jesus called him Simon whenever he was not being the “rock” God called him to be. The same is true for Jacob. God continued to call him Jacob to remind him of his past and to remind to depend on God’s strength. Another possible example is Saul / Paul. The name Saul means “asked.” The name Paul is a variation of the name Saul. The Bible does not say God changed Saul’s name to Paul. It only states that Saul was also called Paul (Acts 13:9).

http://www.gotquestions.org/name-change.html

thoughts?

 

[calluna]

it is true that God can use anyone who believes in Him

A Protestant doctrine, of course.

yet how do you know that was the reason Peter's name was changed?

Who are you to dare ask that question??? At least my version is not blasphemy.

Is there any evidence for this, like in the Bible?

All the way through the gospels and beyond. One has to be blinded by Rome to miss it.

And most are.

If Peter is not the rock, what is the point in calling him 'the rock'?

He's not called 'the rock'.

 

[mont974x4]

It isn't clear that Jesus changed his name to Peter. It is quite possible that people were already calling him Peter, for whatever reason. Many people throughout history have used different names for a variety of reasons.

NASB
Mat 4:18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.


G4074
Πέτρος
Petros
Thayer Definition:
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: apparently a primary word
Citing in TDNT: 6:100, 835

 

[calluna]

It isn't clear that Jesus changed his name to Peter. It is quite possible that people were already calling him Peter, for whatever reason.

Then it must have been as a joke.

 

[mont974x4]

Why? Because it would go against the false teachings of the holy roman empire?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

A Protestant doctrine, of course.

No, that idea (it's not a doctrine btw, it's just an idea) existed way before the Reformation.

Who are you to dare ask that question???

to me, there's nothing wrong with the question.

At least my version is not blasphemy.

and mine is, how?

All the way through the gospels and beyond. One has to be blinded by Rome to miss it.

And most are.

oh I must have missed it when I was a Protestant

what evidence is there in the Bible that Christ changed Peter's name to demonstrate that God can use anyone?? Yes God can use anyone, but where's the evidence that this is the reason for the name change in particular?

I'm still missing it

care to share?

He's not called 'the rock'.

Peter means 'rock'

 

[narnia59]

It isn't clear that Jesus changed his name to Peter. It is quite possible that people were already calling him Peter, for whatever reason. Many people throughout history have used different names for a variety of reasons.

NASB
Mat 4:18 Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.


G4074
Πέτρος
Petros
Thayer Definition:
Peter = "a rock or a stone"
1) one of the twelve disciples of Jesus
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: apparently a primary word
Citing in TDNT: 6:100, 835

Actually, it's quite clear that Jesus changed his name to Peter.

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).



Mark 3:16 These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);

Luke 6:13-14
When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew,

 

[calluna]

No, that idea (it's not a doctrine btw, it's just an idea) existed way before the Reformation.

Evidence?

to me, there's nothing wrong with the question.

Peter means 'rock'

That's better.

 

[mont974x4]

translation used please?
and you are correct.

Still, he called him petros, not petra...despite the ravings of rome.

 

[calluna]

Why? Because it would go against the false teachings of the holy roman empire?

Because Simon Barjona was the least stable horse in the stable, so to speak. Quite jumpy, you might say.

And when Jesus gave him the name, it must have seemed like a joke. But Jesus wasn't joking. So here was prophecy of a big change in Simon's character. Must have got them all thinking.

But not us. See how the vile Roman emperors have messed up the gospel message for 2000 years. Sorry, 1700 years.

 

[narnia59]

translation used please?
and you are correct.

Still, he called him petros, not petra...despite the ravings of rome.

Actually he called him Cephas. That Jesus spoke Aramaic is agreed on by virtually all Bible scholars, and "Cephas" is preserved many times in our current translations. And "Cephas" does not mean "little rock" in Aramaic.

And I believe that translation is NIV. Protestant.

 

[MamaZ]

The change of Peters name was not for anyone but For Peter.. It was not meant for you and it was not meant for I.. It was between Him and Peter..

 

[MamaZ]

Just as the brothers were called the sons of thunder..

 

[narnia59]

Just as the brothers were called the sons of thunder..

Interesting you should mention that. Weren't they known along with Peter as the pillars of the church? Seems that name changes (even nicknames that are shared as this appears to be) have significance after all.

 

[MamaZ]

Maybe to them but not to us.. The significance of Jesus changing Peters name was for Peter.. Unless of course you want to call yourself peter..

 

[mont974x4]

Sorry, I don't buy the roman propaganda used to support the tyranny of popes.

Clearly in the original Greek there is two different words for peter and for the rock that Christ built His Church upon.

Even if we assume it the originals were written in Aramaic it would still stand to reason that there was purpose in using 2 different words when translated to Greek and later to English. And of course, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church and it is the confession of Him being Lord that makes us part of His Church, all living stones....and not built on pete.