Replies

Moreover, while in John 1:42 Jesus told Simon that he would be called "Cephas," as well as assigming that label to him, nowhere in the Greek or the KJV/AV does it ever appear that He personally or familiarly addressed Simon bar Jona as "Cephas" or as "Petros."

The argument from silence does not prove the Messiah did not call him Cephas/Kephas. He very well could have.

The Messiah's naming of Simon Bar Jona as Cephas/Kephas/Peter reminds me of Jacob/Israel, except in the case of Jacob/Israel there is no argument from silence as there is scriptural proof that cannot credibly be denied. Peter, like Jacob, is oft maligned, yet both have power with God. We can all rejoice in that:

And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

...

And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him. And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land. And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him. And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel.

...

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

...

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Genesis, Catholic chapter thirty two, Protestant verses twenty seven to thirty two,
Genesis, Catholic chapter thirty two, Protestant verses twenty nine to fifteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verses twenty seven to twenty eight,
Revelation, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verse four,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

I appreciate your note that has some beautiful passages in it. And as I noted in replies upthread, I believe that Jesus' choice of Simon as a disciple was to show that even the most unlikely could be made useful to furthering the Gospel and applying it. It is instructive to examine Simon's conduct to see how one's own could be improved. Mine, for instance, for it is clear that I take after Simon in many ways.

There is but a razor-thin margin between Simon's salvation and the Iscariot's loss: the difference is in the heart, not so much in the mind. With His omniscience Jesus knew ahead of time, way ahead. I just don't believe it is appropriate to put Simon on a pedestal, then or now.

But thanks for your note.

The argument from silence does not prove the Messiah did not call him Cephas/Kephas. He very well could have.

Nor does your argument on the same basis prove that Jesus ever did. But since the silence of the issue is an inspired, inerrant, complete silence, I take the absence of Jesus use of "Peter" to address him, combined with the very positive indication in an intimate vignette more convincing:

The risen Jesus: "Simon of Jonas, lovest^{ἀγαπάω = sovereignly prefer} thou me more^fully than these^{than the others do}?
Simon: "Yea, Lord; thou knowest^perceive that I love^{φιλέω = have affection for} thee."
Jesus: "Feed^nurse my lambs^{little ones}."

(perhaps a contemplative pause?)

Jesus: "Simon of Jonas, lovest^{ἀγαπάω = sovereignly prefer} thou me?
Simon: "Yea, Lord; thou knowest^perceive that I love^{φιλέω = have affection for} thee."
Jesus: "Feed^{take to pasture} my sheep^{grown ones}."

(another thoughtful moment?)

Jesus (pressing a bit?): "Simon of Jonas, lovestsup>φιλέω = have affection for thou me?
Simon (Peter) (aggrieved at the insistence and alteration of the kind of love mentioned): "Lord, thou knowest^perceivehave knowledge that I love^{have affection for} thee."
Jesus: "Feed^{bring fodder to} my sheep^{grown ones}." Jesus then tells Simon of his future.

I would think that if Jesus was in the habit of addressing him by his common nickname, that it would be here, if anywhere. But again, that's just an unproveable hypothesis, not a doctrine. More than anything, my opinion is that this little vignette is the point at which Simon is shown that the six denials of the trial night did not cause Jesus to dismiss him, but rather encouraged Simon to keep trusting in Him and keep on with the ministry, as the others were.

Well, so much for the primacy of "Peter" as "Pope," I hope.

The argument from silence does not prove the Messiah did not call him Cephas/Kephas. He very well could have.

He very well could have.

What you are witnessing is the Roman Basis of Truth!

God Could Have Done it that Way!!!!

Yes, once the facts do not support a Roman belief, there is a quick turn to "God could have done it that way."

Isn't it amazing that most of the key beliefs of Romanism are not to be found in the Scriptures and only in Hopium??