Replies

Except that both terms are translations from the single Aramaic word ‘Kepha’. The use of ‘Petros’ was needed in the translation to the Greek because of the need of the masculine gender for a male name.

Naw...There's no evidence that it was translated from Aramaic...Besides Peter later on even acknowledges himself as a stone while he acknowledges Jesus as THE Rock...YOu guys will say anything to make the bible wrong...

Naw...There's no evidence that it was translated from Aramaic...

Wrong again! Aramaic, not Greek, was the common language of the Jews. See John 1:42:

Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

Notice where it says that 'Cephas' is translated 'Peter'/'Petros'.

Even in his letters, which were written in Greek, Paul uses the Aramaic 'Kephas' as Peter's name:

I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
--1 Cor 1:12
Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or the present or the future: all belong to you.
--1 Cor 3:22
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
--1 Cor 9:5
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
--1 Cor 15:5 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.
--Gal 1:18
and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
--Gal 2:9
But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
--Gal 2:14

If Peter was the first pope and the head of the Church why didn’t he take a position of authority over the other disciples? If the Lord had indeed presented the Apostle Peter as the (supposed) head of the remaining Apostles - and in their presence – then what would have been the point of such a query-argument by the Disciples? And why didn’t Christ respond to their query by stating that Peter was indeed their superior? Not only did the Lord not mention anything like Peter’s primacy, but He actually reassured them that during His Second Coming, all twelve of them would be seated on twelve thrones, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mathew 19: 28, Luke 22: 30).