Where's the Aramaic text. If you are going to Quote from it, darn tutin you're going to present it! Don't give me this stuff from nonexistant authority and tell us it's scholarship. Boy you guys need oxygen and time out of the sun don't you!
Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. "Cephas" is the equivalent of Peter in Aramaic. "Cephas" is the rock. "This Cephas" is what the Church is being built upon. Case closed.
Sorry, you're making a case from nonexistant evidence. You and Pegleg are two sides of the same stinkin coin today. Pegleg at least gave a citation to stuff that in no way supported his argument. You want to base an argument on evidence that doesn't even exist, that you cannot cite and draw authority from it. I'm trying very hard to find words to describe the affront that poses. No wonder truth really doesn't matter at times to you guys. You just make it up and base something on it - doesn't matter if it's true or not.
It's you that is playing the word games, either dishonestly or ignorantly choosing to use the Greek translation rather than the original Aramaic.
What original Aramaic? Where is it? Produce it that we may pour over it and read it for ourselves! When you can produce it and it can be subtantiated, you can quote from it all you wish. Making it up is not scholarship. And it isn't acceptable as evidence of anything more than your unwillingness to deal with reality.
John the Evangelist referred to SImon Peter as Cephas for a reason.
And that matters to what extent? Simon was called many things and can be called many things. Coward would be as fitting as any at one point in his life. Cephas was not documented as being used in the verse you want to play word games with. And how it would have been written in Aramaic is speculation on your part - supposition - GUESSING. Thank you very much.
Sorry, if you want to debate me with me, I've got no problem with having evidence presented. But when you start fabricating junk history, you are going to be called on it. It has no weight with me.