Expert: John of AllFaith - 10/28/2010

Question
Dear John,
Why in Sacred Scripture does St. Paul address Peter by the Aramaic form of Peter, Kephas which only means rock? Aramaic was the language of Christ. Kephas has no double meaning,it simply means rock. Galatians 1:18,even states Paul spent two weeks with Kephas,Galatian 2:9 he speaks of Kephas sending Paul out to evangelize. Even Galatian 2:11 the famous confrontation of Peter by Paul he still calls him Kephas. Paul and the Holy Spirit thru Sacred Scripture seems to have seen the divisive argument over the Greek name Peter which  people try to use to avoid the Papacy in the Sacred Scripture coming. Paul was obedient to the office of Kephas ,because even he knew who gave Kephas the job,Jesus. Scripture scholars have noted this since the early Church Fathers in the first and second century. Why do Bible alone people deny the very words of Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19? If  Christ doesn't mean what he says,why wouldn't you be looking for someone who does,the Bible alone doctrine goes against itself when every time peopl use Sacred Scripture to prove 2000 years of visible truth of Christ's proclaimations at Caesarea Phillipi,the very people you would think would say the Bible contains no error because this is the only book we believe in are the first to say Christ really did't mean it. The Papacy was prophecied in Isaiah 22:20-24. The words almost identicle to the ones Christ used in Matthew 16:17-19. Is that passage meaningless too ?  

Answer
Hi Glen,

There is uncertainty about what language(s) the original New Testament was written in. The New Testament as we have it today is a mixture of Greek and Aramaic (in the East the Peshita -- a complete Aramaic version) is used while we in the West use the mainly Greek version(s).

Many names mean things. For instance the name Y'shua means Yah Saves ("Jesus" does not mean this). The name John (Yochanan) means Yah is Gracious etc.

Peter Petros in the Greek and Kephas in the Aramaic does not quite mean "rock" as suggested, it means closer to a "little rock," like a pebble or a small rock. Y'shua (Jesus) is the "stone that the builders rejected" (Luke 20:15). That stone is a "lithos."

It appears that in these verses Y'shua (Jesus) is using Peter's name for a play on words. Peter is a "little rock" while Y'shua is a "big rock." The important point is found in the text:

Matthew 16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Note verse 17: Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona (not Petros/Kephas incidentally) for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee...

Has not revealed what? That your name is Peter/Rock? No, has not revealed to you that "Jesus is the the Christ, the Son of the living God" and that upon THAT rock the Church is being built. See that? The text does not say the Church is to be built on Peter but rather on the solid foundation of what he said. Who is the Church to built on?

I Timothy 2:5  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

The idea of a human religious leader, Mary, an hierarchical religious structure etc. being the mediator completely violates the very heart of why Jesus came and what he accomplished. He alone is our High Priest and Mediator with God according to the Bible.

--- Aramaic was the language of Christ.

That is debatable. Even early Catholic theologians say the Jesus and the disciples were well versed in Hebrew (Epiphanius; Panarion 29).

The 12 mainly stayed in Jerusalem prior to 68-70 while Paul traveled abroad. He would have spoken to people according to the common language (whatever that was) and understood the Hebrew scriptures in Hebrew.

Galatians 1:19 does say he spoke with Peter, he also spoke with James, who was the head of the Church and then at Galatians 2:11, as you say, he argued with Peter as he would not have done with the Pope. He called him by his name, Rock, there is no more meaning that that. When my wife calls me by my name she is not saying "Yah is Gracious" she is referring to her husband whose name is John.


--- Paul was obedient to the office of Kephas ,because even he knew who gave Kephas the job,Jesus.

There is nothing in scripture that says that. The opposite is closer to the case.

--- Why do Bible alone people deny the very words of Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-19?

I've never met a single "Bible alone" person who denies these passages. Matthew 16:18, 19 does not say what Catholics say. It is very clear, The truth that Jesus is the Son of God is the foundation of the Church and John 21 has nothing to do with this topic at all.
Then after that
John 21:20  Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Joh 21:21  Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
Joh 21:22  Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Peter did not understand an appointment like that to exist. He clearly considered John to be his peer and asked, "What about him?"

--- If  Christ doesn't mean what he says,why wouldn't you be looking for someone who does...

Jesus meant what he said, Catholic dogma often misrepresents what was said. This is a case point.

This is twisted so thoroughly that it is mind boggling. Isaiah 22:20-24 has nothing to do with Catholicism in any way.  Eliakim the son of Hilkiah is a name for the Catholic church? Catholics don't rule over Judah etc. etc. This is just silly.

Best of success to you.

~ John of AllFaith