** The conversation had begun centered around the word “rock” in St Matthew’s Gospel (Mt 16:18), but quickly devolved into a debate about ancient languages. My friend held that the word “rock” couldn’t possibly refer to St. Peter because the Gospel was written in Greek, and the Greek words used in that passage are “petros” and “petra,” which mean “rock” and “small rock,” respectively. I pointed out that Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for rock is “kepha,” which means “big rock” or “boulder.”**
These are puzzling arguments - “Peter” supposedly being derived from “Petra”. The first person claims that the use of the word “Petra” cannot refer to Peter - an odd argument. The author, in an apparent attempt to prove that the reference is to Peter says that Jesus actually used the word “kepha” - which certainly must prove that it is Peter to whom he is referring.
Logically, the first argument supports the reference to Peter more than it disputes it, and the second, “kepha”, argument casts doubts on the reference rather than supporting it.
This guy claims to use basic apologetics...but apologetics demands a sound logical foundation, and he clearly has none. This is not apologetics, it is confusing.
Was “Kepha” ever used as someone’s name in Aramaic?
Did Peter understand Aramaic?