[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Look, Galatians 2:9 says that Paul met with James, Cephas, and John, who were pillars of the church in Jerusalem. Cephas = Peter fits perfectly with all of the rest of the NT data as to who were the "chief Apostles", from the time during Jesus' earthly ministry onward.

Face it, Peter was to be blamed, and Paul called him out on it. There's no need to try to invent some other Cephas out of whole cloth just to defend unscriptural doctrines invented hundreds of years after the NT was written.

[AmericaUnited]

Correct. Peter was a little slow to fully understand what the new covenant was all about. (Acts 10+11)

[dangus]

>> Face it, Peter was to be blamed, and Paul called him out on it. There’s no need to try to invent some other Cephas out of whole cloth just to defend unscriptural doctrines invented hundreds of years after the NT was written.
<<

Wow! It never ceases to amaze me how people argue with posts they’ve never even read, based on the presumption “so-and-so is a different creed then me, so if I believe this, I can presume he means the opposite of this.”

I draw your attention again to the summation of the article:

Whether Cephas is Peter or not, the teaching that Christians aren’t bound by Jewish customs is Peter’s own. In neither case does Cephas commit heresy, only sinfulness, so If Cephas was Peter, the incident speaks to Peter’s impeccability (absence of moral fault), not his infallibility (absence of falseness). Whereas Catholics alone hold that Peter’s infallibility was unique and borne in an office which could be succeeded, it is quite dangerous to any Christian’s faith to allow that the author of sacred scripture may have been a heretic.

In what way could you possibly characterize that as as a try to “invent some other Cephas out of whole cloth just to defend unscriptural doctrines invented hundreds of years after the NT was written” ?

[magisterium]

Face it, Peter was to be blamed, and Paul called him out on it. There’s no need to try to invent some other Cephas out of whole cloth just to defend unscriptural doctrines invented hundreds of years after the NT was written.

Well, I, for one, have no trouble admitting that Cephas needed correcting from St. Paul in the matters discussed in Galatians, even while most certainly acknowledging that it was "that" Cephas - Simon Peter - who is being addressed. In fact, it seems clear enough to me that the passage provides more evidence, not less, for Catholic claims about Peter's office. Look at my post 6, if you like, to see what I mean.

Besides that, though, I'm not particularly sure that dangus is even "sort of" insisting on this Cephas not being Simon Peter. He is only posting it as an interesting theory. It is hardly necessary for the Church to "invent" this idea, and certainly not to buttress doctrines "invented hundreds of years after the NT was written," for there are no such doctrines to begin with.