Cephas!

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
I have often wondered why Jesus gave Simon BarJonas the name 'Cephas'.
I have often wondered why so many people have become used to calling him 'Peter', a name that neither he nor Jesus heard, imo.

And I've often wondered what Jesus did for work along the Capernaum shoreline, before he started his mission.

Thoughts? Ideas?
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
Cephas
Petros

Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
Messages
385
Reaction score
350
Points
63
@badger -

Do you think the individual revered by those of the Christian faith ever heard himself referred to as “Jesus”?
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
@badger -

Do you think the individual revered by those of the Christian faith ever heard himself referred to as “Jesus”?

No.... :)
Maybe Yeshua...? Yeshua BarYosef? Something like that?
A few of the disciple's name have altered over the millenia, I think.

Judas Iscariot is another one, maybe that was Judah BenSimon (I think he was a low-order Levite).
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Cephas
Petros

Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

Yes, I've read that of course, but I doubt it because it does not appear in G-Mark, Jesus would never have mentioned any kind of church (or congregation) and certainly didn't speak in terms of 'the gates of hell'....... or so I think.

Jesus worked along the Capernaum shoreline, probably as a Nagar or Nagara, a handworker in wood bone and stone and his main customers could have been the boatmen of the lake which is how he knew so many. To get any idea of a picture two thousand years old a student has to learn about those people and try to grasp some kind of real picture.

I see men, women and children working. Everybody worked. A handworker could have made many items useful to the boatmen, for instance, if Jesus had a small bag of bone net needles then he wouldn't have needed much coin-currency to hand, and if he made oars, spars, boat repairs then that could have been his main income.

But he probably made something else, the boatmen needed net weights, throwing weights and boat anchors. Cephas! When Galilee Lake level reduced from irrigation people started to find wonderful things, ancient boats......and anchors! Large rocks bored through with a single hole.

Maybe Jesus said to Simon BarJonas....... 'You will be my Anchor! My Anchorman!'

Anchors were simple a large rock bored through....there are several pics on IT now.

P1020759.JPG
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
Yes, I've read that of course, but I doubt it because it does not appear in G-Mark
Just to be clear: if something is not mentioned in Mark, it becomes irrelevant?
 
Last edited:

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
@badger
Sorry. I take your point about the anchor stone and do not mean to sound argumentative. But I don't find convincing reason to reject Christ's words upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it

Jesus spoke a different language to that of the gospels. Church can refer to any commemorative group meeting after his death, and Christ did speak of sheol -- in the sense of: death shall not prevail.

The overall meaning is unchanged. I don't believe the statement can just be kicked away into the grass?
 
Last edited:

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Just to be clear: if something is not mentioned in Mark, it becomes irrelevant?
No...... Imo there's masses of information in the other gospels to be drawn from.
It's just that I trust Mark more, even though that has been tinkered with as well. (Even Verse 1 Chapter 1 has additions).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
@badger
Sorry. I take your point about the anchor stone and do not mean to sound argumentative. But I don't find convincing reason to reject Christ's words upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it
I just see this differently.
For example, Jesus was not 'Christ' when he spoke to Caphas, and certainly didn't know that word...that all came after...
The sentence shown is obviously metaphorical because, as you say, he wasn't constructing buildings, there was no physical foundation stone, and the word 'church' was, as you say, about commemorative meetings 'after his death'.

Jesus spoke a different language to that of the gospels. Church can refer to any commemorative group meeting after his death, and Christ did speak of sheol -- in the sense of: death shall not prevail.
Yes, he did speak a different language, Galilean working classes spoke Eastern Aramaic, even different to the Southern Jews.

The overall meaning is unchanged. I don't believe the statement can just be kicked away into the grass?
Developing the possibilities isn't trashing the older ones......it's just reviewing the possibilities.

Cephas was a boatman and 'anchor' was a seriously secure term to give as his (what we call)...nickname.

It's all just a point of view.
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
Developing the possibilities isn't trashing the older ones......it's just reviewing the possibilities.
Well, there seems to be a line in the sand here? At any rate, it's the basis of the religion/church that has lasted pretty well, regardless
It's all just a point of view
Of course ...
 

Cino

Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
Admin
Messages
3,659
Reaction score
1,974
Points
108
Location
Germany
Yes, I've read that of course, but I doubt it because it does not appear in G-Mark, Jesus would never have mentioned any kind of church (or congregation) and certainly didn't speak in terms of 'the gates of hell'....... or so I think.

The Greek word which is the base for "synagogue" means "congregation" or "assembly", I think.

Jesus worked along the Capernaum shoreline,

There was a synagogue building in Capernaum. There are references in Mark of Jesus being in such buildings.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
Many believe He was the incarnation: Emmanuel -- God with us?
Yes. It's just different for me.
There are billions of people who believe that Jesus was/is God with them, and some others like me who believe that Jesus was a man who stood for social justice.
It's strange but I can join with Christians in some debates, yet face them in others.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
The Greek word which is the base for "synagogue" means "congregation" or "assembly", I think.

There was a synagogue building in Capernaum. There are references in Mark of Jesus being in such buildings.
Yes........ meeting places, although I don't know the Eastern Aramaic for them....... actually that's a homework for me, right there.
They definitely would not have been called synagogues in early first century Galilee........ that was how the account was written in Greek. imo.
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
The Greek word which is the base for "synagogue" means "congregation" or "assembly", I think.

There was a synagogue building in Capernaum. There are references in Mark of Jesus being in such buildings.
An english-aramaic translation dictionary offers (sounds like this spelling) OaK,NuOSHYaA
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
They definitely would not have been called synagogues in early first century Galilee........ that was how the account
But what's the problem? Is it the words or the overall intention of the words?
 

badger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
406
Points
83
But what's the problem? Is it the words or the overall intention of the words?
There is no problem. It's not about words or intention of words, it's a study of four depositions written 2000 years ago in attempt to find out more about them.
Why? In 1994 my lunchtime project was to read the bible. Why? Well, I just wanted to do that. Some of the OT was gripping, some intensely slow, but I gained massive respect for all the laws of Moses (for that time) and by the time I reached the gospels I was more adapted to the KJV language and picking up on details that I'd never known about before. I discovered more about what was happening and wanted to get as close to the accounts as I could. So if a person was called (say) 'Harold' I didn't want to read that he was called 'Arthur'..... I wanted more accurate facts if possible.

Why anything? 40-50 years ago I built sea rowing boats and used to distance-row across the North Sea, or the outer Thames Estuary I never took a passport with me because nobody ever questioned the nationality of a person rowing a boat back then (they would today!) . On the very few occasions when anybody has pointed out how mad/stupid that was I just answer 'suicide-risk', which most skeptics will grasp to and then shut up more quickly.

Short answer .... I don't know why. It just happened. :)
 

RJM

God Feeds the Ravens
Admin
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
2,181
Points
108
There is no problem. It's not about words or intention of words, it's a study of four depositions written 2000 years ago in attempt to find out more about them.
Why? In 1994 my lunchtime project was to read the bible. Why? Well, I just wanted to do that. Some of the OT was gripping, some intensely slow, but I gained massive respect for all the laws of Moses (for that time) and by the time I reached the gospels I was more adapted to the KJV language and picking up on details that I'd never known about before. I discovered more about what was happening and wanted to get as close to the accounts as I could. So if a person was called (say) 'Harold' I didn't want to read that he was called 'Arthur'..... I wanted more accurate facts if possible.

Why anything? 40-50 years ago I built sea rowing boats and used to distance-row across the North Sea, or the outer Thames Estuary I never took a passport with me because nobody ever questioned the nationality of a person rowing a boat back then (they would today!) . On the very few occasions when anybody has pointed out how mad/stupid that was I just answer 'suicide-risk', which most skeptics will grasp to and then shut up more quickly.

Short answer .... I don't know why. It just happened. :)
Ok but is the fact of Jesus using the (translated) words 'church' and 'hell' your sole basis for rejecting Matthew 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.
 
Last edited:
Top