Scripture and Tradition

Catholic.com ^

[aMorePerfectUnion]

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,( Cephas ) and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Jesus did not appoint Simon to lead the apostles, he just knew that he would after he received the holy spirit.

---

Peter fades out after his role at Pentecost, opening the Gospel to Gentiles. It is difficult to make a case that he was the leader.

[ravenwolf]

Peter fades out after his role at Pentecost, opening the Gospel to Gentiles. It is difficult to make a case that he was the leader.

---

Yes he does fade out as with all of the Apostles because Jesus taught them that they were only servants and not Hierachy.

They were instructed to spread the Gospel, not bring fame to them selves.

[ravenwolf]

Already treated this a ways back: 204

---

Opinions which comes from deciding what the Bible should have said instead of what it does say is not what i call fair treatment.

Lets see the scriptures.

[ravenwolf]

All right you two; what’s the Greek word for step-cousin?

---

You just have to have the last word, don`t you?

[imardmd1]

I guess you might have been too steamed up to carefully read what I wrote there, and do your own interpretation of the Greek and Hebrew and Chaldee languages involved.

My opinions in Post #204 are well backed up by the citations I gave, in spite of your smart comment. If you think the Scriptures say something different, prove it. Anyone that reads the whole New Testament carefully will come to the obvious conclusion the Simon bar Jona was headstrong, opinionated, bossy, and hungry for power over others. That does not mean that he didn't turn out to be a pretty good Christian, a plain, rough man who could speak to the many other tough men of that age better than you or I could. But you have to look at his whole person, the way the Bible presents him--the way that the Messiah took him and enlarged his fitness to serve, even to the death, when brought under contol and to humbleness.

=======

Word meaning and pronunciation:

Strong's Number G2786 (Greek)
Κηφᾶς
Kēphas
kay-fas'
Strong's Definition:
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H3710]); the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), surname of Peter: - Cephas.

Strong's Number H3710 (Chaldee)
כּף
kêph
kafe
Strong's Definition
From H3721; a hollow rock: - rock.
Brown, Driver, Briggs Definition:
1) rock, hollow of a rock
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H3721
========

There are a couple of philological notes you might want to let enter into your noggin:

(1) A hollow in a rock is called a cave; sound it out and see if that is not a clue.

(2) The word "cephalic" is an adjective related to a head or the head. That's another clue.

I've told you something that takes you a little deeper into what the Scripture says about "Peter" that others shy away from, because of their false adulation of him. In doing so, they are just as dense as he was at the start. Is that going to be your route, too, to fail to see all of what the Scriptures say? Are you going to settle for just part of it?.

[daniel1212]

It is worthy of note that crucifixion is not an instant process. Though its end is sure, it takes time.

"Worthy of note!" I'll say. If our positional crucifixion by faith in the risen Lord Jesus, and signified by baptism, was indeed the practical reality in every believer, then there would be little left in the church epistles.

The problem with a living sacrifice (cf. Rm./ 12:1) is that is can crawl of the altar.

[ravenwolf]

a hollow rock: ???????????

the Rock; Cephas (that is, Kepha), .......
that is all we really need, nothing more.

Every now and then a word will actually change the meaning of scripture, for instance changing Slept to sleeping may make it appear that the Resurrection had not happened yet.

And of course that is why the scribes and pharisees changed it in many versions of the Bible.

John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. 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 was translated from the Greek, but Cephas comes from the Greek so no interpretation is needed.

And your opinion of Peter does not matter to me, if it is not in scripture please preach it to the new converts, they will probably buy it in their anxiety to be anti Catholic..

[imardmd1]

This was translated from the Greek, but Cephas comes from the Greek so no interpretation is needed.

You do not seem at all to know the difference between "transliteration," "translation," "interpretation," and "application."

I see you are not going to be reasonable, but you are going to argue with me on this and with Scripture, as Simon did think he was wiser than his Teacher.

"Cephas" is not a Greek word. The Chaldean/Aramaic word "Kay-fa" that Jesus determined that Simon was to be called was transliterated into Greek letters so that said in Greek it sounded as the Chaldean word was pronounced. They did add the fins letter "sigma" (our "s") to make it devlinable in Greek, according to its use in the sentence. John translated it into Greek as the word "petros" which meant to the first century Greek-speaker the same as it means to an English speaker of 1600 or of today: "stone."

But the translators of the KJV transliterated the Greek "Kayfas" (spelled kappa, eta, phi, alpha, sigma) into the English alphabet as "Cephas" (the C being the hard sound like "k" as in "candy" or "Carl"; replaced the eta with "e" to sound like "ay" as in "whey"; and used ph in English in place of "phi" to give the "f" sound, as in "Philadelphia").

Correctly pronounced in English, the word spelled "Cephas" in the KJV is pronounced "kay-fass". If you didn't know this, when reading it aloud you would probably have said "See-fus", which is how nearly all today's semiliterate hillbillies would use it (without having the slightest inkling of what it meant, or why it was only Paul other than John to use it in writing to the New Testament churches.

But now that you know it, to turn back to an ignorant approach is inexcusable. Even to God, Who knows all this. And it is your job to pass it on, not to withhold it, as you indicated is your intent:

And your opinion of Peter does not matter to me, if it is not in scripture please preach it to the new converts, they will probably buy it in their anxiety to be anti Catholic . . ."

What I wrote is not at all anti-Catholic, unless a part of Catholicism is elevating some humans to be gods. And, yes, what I wrote about is in the Scriptures, right under your nose, but apparently you have not the sense or training to know it.

Like "Peter."

Some other people would way, "Thank you, sir, for your labors in the effort to improve my education." As I do to others in this forum who have improved mine immeasurably.

[imardmd1]

The problem with a living sacrifice (cf. Rm./ 12:1) is that is can crawl of the altar.

And that is why the faithful of The Lord assemble on the first day of the week according to Romans 12:1-2, for the breaking of the Bread, for instruction in the doctrines of the apostles, for prayer, for fellowship in The Son (1 Cor. 1:9), to supply the needs of the saints; and if necessary, for church discipline.

Galatians 5:24 AV:
"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

[ravenwolf]

You do not seem at all to know the difference between “transliteration,” “translation,” “interpretation,” and “application.”

---

You have that right.

It don`t really make any difference what the word is or was, John told us the meaning ( A stone ), Jesus told us that Simon would be called a stone.

As for the rest of what you say, i know very little about it but it does depend on where you are reading to get what you get so i will just take Johns word for the fact that Simon was called a stone.

If Jesus had of wanted a bunch of college educated Pharisees as his apostles he could have gotten as many as he needed but he did not want some one who already thought they knew more than he did.

Mathew 18
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[af_vet_1981]

That was a servant who evidently had faith, yet grew lax, careless, ignored the LORD’s commandments, and mistreated other servants. It is a very strong argument against “once saved, always saved” or “sola fide”.