Peter petra petros kepha

quote:

---

Originally posted by God4me

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwellmysoul


In addition, G4Me, if your denomination is the Early Church, do you follow the practices of the Early Church?

Does your denomination, at every service, gather together for "the breaking of the Bread"?

---

Yes, Unlike the catholics, We do follow the practices of the Early Church, In fact My Church is just like the early Church, We do healings and miracles, We speak in tongues and prophecy, We cast out demons and raise the dead.

If you came into my Church, You would think it is the Acts of the Apostles.Re-write.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ftbond

Guys, there is NOT a Hebrew word "keph"...

---

quote:

---

Cephas (??fa?)John 1:42

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John, you shall be called Cephas", which is translated 'Peter'. (New International Version)

1 Corinthians 1:12

But I say that each of you says "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos", or "I am of Cephas", or "I am of Christ".

Galatians 1:18 NRSV

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days;

In these passages, 'Cephas' is given as the nickname of the apostle better known as Simon Peter.

The Greek word is transliterated ??f?? (Kephâs).

The apostle's given name appears to be Simon, and he is given the Aramaic nickname, kêfâ, meaning 'rock' or 'stone'.

The final sigma (s) is added in Greek to make the name masculine rather than feminine.

That the meaning of the name was more important than the name itself is evidenced by the universal acceptance of the Greek translation, ??t??? (Petros).

It is not known why Paul uses the Aramaic name rather than the Greek name for Simon Peter when he writes to the churches in Galatia and Corinth.[34]

He may have been writing at a time before Cephas came to be popularly known as Peter.

According to Clement of Alexandria, there were two people named Cephas: one was Apostle Simon Peter, and the other was one of Jesus' Seventy Apostles.[35]

Clement goes further to say it was Cephas of the Seventy who was condemned by Paul in Galatians 2 for not eating with the Gentiles, though this is perhaps Clement's way of deflecting the condemnation from Simon Peter.

In any case the relationship of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism (which this involves) is still disputed.

In Aramaic, it could be ????.

---

quote:

---

It is generally agreed that the historical Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic,[1] perhaps along with some Hebrew and Greek (although there is some debate as to the degree[2]).

The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus lived, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities, although Greek was widely spoken in the major cities of the Eastern Mediterranean such as Antioch and Alexandria.

Jesus may have also known enough Hebrew to discuss the Hebrew Bible, and he may have known Koine Greek through commerce in nearby Sepphoris.

Aramaic, as a Semitic language, was a common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722 BC – 330 BC).

Aramaic remained a common language of the region in the 1st century AD, despite the subsequent Macedonian-Greek (331 BC) and Roman (63 BC) invasions.

Indeed, in spite of the increasing importance of Greek, the use of Aramaic was also expanding, and it would eventually be entirely dominant among Jews both in the Holy Land and elsewhere in the Middle East around 200 AD;[3] it would remain so until the Arab conquest in the 7th century.

Jesus and his disciples spoke a Galilean dialect clearly distinguishable from that of Jerusalem (see Jewish Palestinian Aramaic).[4][5]

To give some perspective, in the same time period, the Mishnah was recorded in Hebrew, Josephus wrote in Aramaic,[6] and Philo and Paul of Tarsus wrote in Greek.[7][

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ftbond

Faith_at_Large - Why do you say kepha translates into Petra? Show me some lexiograpic info, please.

the info on that website shows the definitions of kepha, petros and petra, all taken directly from some major lexicons... and, as far as I can see, kepha doesnt look like a fit for petra. looks more like petros to me.

so, show me what lexicon you get your info on kepha and petros from.

as far as the keph thing goes, I've just read several extra-biblical refrences about it on that website (they're all included as supporting text). keph just simply isnt a word in hebrew. the word you referred to in Job is kephim, not keph.

just go read the info - OR - get some real sources and references for your own info. Otherwise, I'm thinking you dont really know what you're talking about

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikejuli

quote:

---

Originally posted by God4me


[1]"Lithos", Could also mean, A "Tombstone, a millstone"

Are you saying Jesus is a tombstone??.

---

nope. but this is a great example of why you are not equipped to teach anything g4. you are so dependent on trying to make wrong associations that your even trying to take the very point i made about you and twist that into something i never said. the word lithos is used for jesus. it means a small stone. you said that petros also means small stone.. and that jesus could only be a big rock. now your trying to assert jesus as being a millstone? its ridiculous how you twist and twirl to defend your undefendable claims.

quote:

---

Lithos isn't used for Peter,
The Greek word for "Stone", As In for Peter, is, "Petros",
The size of the stone used for Peter doesn't matter, What does matter is, Peter was a stone that was easily moved or shaken, And Jesus didn't build His Church on him.

Peter was NEVER a rock..STOP TELLING LIES.

---

never said lithos was used for peter. all a said was lithos means a small stone and since your claiming that petros means a small stone then either it doesn't change anything and your argument is dead or petros doesn't mean small stone and your argument is dead. it's a no win situation for you.

quote:

---

[2]The Jews knew Abrahan was the Father of many nations, The Father of multitudes, That why thet Called him father, Not because they thought he was God.

---

duh! so like i said he is called father. as i already pointed out the jews knew the difference between god the father and father being applied to abraham.. did you not read that or did you not know that until after i proved your claim wrong? either way don't repeat what i already told you as if your telling me..

quote:

---

The Full neame that God gave Abram, Was, Abraham,Meaning,
"The Father of many nations,/multitudes",

Abraham doesn't mean Just "Father".

---

never said it meant just father.. what i said is that he was called father.. stop trying to find ways to make me say what i didn't say.. he is called father several times, even by jesus.. father abraham.. it was a name change given by god that identified abraham with an aspect of god and the whold jewish nation was built on that one man and his successors.

quote:

---

[3]The Bible doesn't say Jesus built His Church on Peter..STOP TELLING LIES.
You say the Bible says so, But you don;t give scriptures to back it up.
Greek scolars don't say Jesus built His Church on Peter. STOP TELLING LIES.
LYING catholic sckolars might have said that, But we all know how the catholic tell lies.

---

it does say so, it then goes on to show so.. the greek scholars do say that and even protestant scholars tell the truth on this g4. your anti catholic idiots are wrong.

quote:

---

Now you are just being silly, twisting the Bible and telling lies.
Jesus nave used "Lithos" for Peter.

---

again, i never made that claim. maybe you should go back to the 3rd grade and try to gain some reading comprehension?

quote:

---

[5]You said,

quote:

---

that makes no sense. there aren't two peters so it cannot be plural. it makes more sense that it is a masculine form of petra..
[End quote].

You are showing your ignorance of te Greek.

---

nope. you are.

quote:

---

[6]You said, I can't prove my case,
STOP TELLING LIES, If have given you, Biblical,Aramaic and Greek proof.

What you mean is, You will rather believe the pope's porkies then the Biblical truth..GET IT RIGHT.

---

no.. i just don't believe your porkies g4. i know that makes you all kind of mad but in reality its not that hard to do. after all your pretty dumb.. you haven't given proof. only assertions which you haven't backed up. the catholics here have backed up their claims and you have only tried to twist them to sound like something else but i doubt anyone is fooled...

quote:

---

[7]You said.
[Quote]
not a fact. it proves just the opposite. you can't handle the truth.
[End quote].

There you go again...TELLING LIES.

---

---

i don't lie.. your claim that i do is a lie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith_at_Large

G4, the Aramaic texts say that Jesus will build His church on this KEPHA, that is the word that is used.

Whether you think it is a big rock or a little rock, the word is still kepha, and this word normally translates as petra in Greek.

And it does not matter what shua means, because that word was not used in that passage. Jesus did not say he would build his church on any shua. The word does not appear in the Aramaic text.

What you don't understand is that while the texts did get transtated into many languages over time as the Church grew, the local churches that began in the middle east continued to use Aramaic as their language of worship. There are ancient Christian churches that to this day still worship in Aramaic using Aramaic scriptures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jdubya

quote:

---

Originally posted by God4me

Here is more proof that Petra and Petros aren't the same meaning.
In the Greek, The persons' and numbers have to agree.

And Peter, "Petros", Is the 2nd person and plural in number.

The "Rock That Jesus built His Church on", Is.
"Petra", The 3rd person, singular in number.

So, You can see that Petra doen't agree with Petros.

---

Here again is our resident greek scholar and doctor of theology claiming nouns convey person independent of the address and that “You are Peter” is somehow plural and that indirect address is equivalent to third person.
Three basic grammar errors that have nothing to do with theology.

G4, Do you understand what makes an address first, second or third person?

Do you understand that “You are Peter” is not plural? If you persist in stating this, you must not even know the difference between singular and plural. How many You’s and Peter’s is Jesus addressing?

If the English translation isn’t clear enough for you, look at the Greek text. Every one of these words is singular (You are Peter). It doesn’t say “you all are pebbles”
My kids learned the difference no later than second grade.
But when you are perfect and beyond correction, 1 + 1 = anything you say it does.

For your information,
“You are Peter/Petros” is second person singular.
“And on this petra” is indirect address (not the same as third person) and singular.

So the rule (which you don’t know how to properly apply anyway) doesn’t even have a starting point.

There is nothing to debate here. Sorry doctor, but you are just flat out wrong on the grammar fundamentals on a level that is frankly embarrassing. Yet you persist????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by acumenCry

quote:

---

Originally posted by God4me

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwellmysoul


In addition, G4Me, if your denomination is the Early Church, do you follow the practices of the Early Church?

Does your denomination, at every service, gather together for "the breaking of the Bread"?

---

Yes, Unlike the catholics, We do follow the practices of the Early Church, In fact My Church is just like the early Church, We do healings and miracles, We speak in tongues and prophecy, We cast out demons and raise the dead.

If you came into my Church, You would think it is the Acts of the Apostles.Re-write.

---

Haha, you think your church is equal to that of Acts? And when it comes to miracles? g4, the Apostles never had to blame people for lack of faith when their faith was insufficient to heal them... because it never was insufficient. They had true, flawless power from High. They were the real deal and never had to make excuses.

---