Cephas of the Seventy and Peter

[MarcoPG]

The very reason that Paul places James before the small “a” apostles is that James is first among the 70.

It may be, but how do you conclude he is talking about the 70 apostles and not James, Peter and John, the same 3 who were taken to Mount Tabor and saw our Lord in glory?

I can repeat my take: that James was the bishop in place, Peter was gone, so he places him after the bishop of Jerusalem in the context of this community.

 

[jcrichton]

The very reason that Paul places James before the small “a” apostles is that James is first among the 70.

Hi!
…I think we are on the same page (maybe?)… the Writing is a review of the account of Jesus’ Incarnation, Ministry, Death, and Resurrection… as a matter of course (direction) the Writers seek to position Simon Peter in the “director’s chair,” so to speak… even St. John notes in his Gospel that though he ran faster (younger, perhaps athletic and fit vs. older Peter) and got to the Tomb first, he did not enter it till Peter did. (Coincidentally, that’s another passage that lends itself to misunderstanding and conclusion jumping.)

…so James is ranked as a leader amongst the apostles (there were more than the original Twelve); also, the naming of James demonstrates that St. Paul had some intimacy (knowledge/friendship) with that person.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

• The idea that there may have been another Cephas made me search for the usage of this name in the Ancient times, but I found nothing. It wasn’t really about changing one’s name to Cephas, but was Cephas even a name, since some say Cephas wasn’t used as a name before Peter was named so by Christ.
  Funnily, Bart Ehrman thought Cephas and Peter were different people…
• “It isassumed” is actually why it is a tradition with little t. I am not saying that because the Orthodox have this tradition, it must be true. Obviously, it is a sign of a belief anyway. It is true that it is unlikely that Cephas of the seventy would be in the middle of an epistle and not in the salutation in the beginning or the end (for instance, Sosthenes says hello, or say hi to Barnabas).
  If I had jumped to any conclusion, I would say Cephas is Peter. My only question is: “What is the Orthodox response or arguement” to what can be seen as a different Cephas? Not much. And I would like to find a way to show Cephas is indeed Peter even if any argument were to arise.
• Yes, your passage of 1 Corinthians agrees with my view as well.
  I find interesting that in your version of 1 Corinthians, it is said 5 And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven. not the twelve. In other translations, there is the twelve as a name for the group of the disciples, were they with or without Judas.

That is why, also, saying “He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve” doesn’t necessarily mean (as Ehrman thinks) “to Cephas, then to Peter and the other Apostles” but “to Peter alone, then to the whole group”.

Hi, Marco!
…please understand that I am not suggesting that you are jumping to any conclusions (when I write I tend to address issues for all audiences (the poster, readers, and lookers) so I tend to throw in terms that engulf both the issue at hand and what I’ve previously encounter.

…hence, jumps and preconceptions usually tint and tilt every issue/argument… it is quite difficult to dissuade any person from what they perceive as true/correct, even when Scriptures may demonstrate exactly the opposite of they view and hold as correct.

…I purposely used the Douay Rheims version of Scriptures to point out that the discourse is speaking of events that happened right after the Resurrection and prior to the inclusion of Matthias as part of the Twelve (Acts 1:12-26) and that the term may still have been used as it was Jesus’ choosing of Twelve (representative of the twelve tribes of Israel), though clearly at the time they were only 11 Disciples.

…and you can see how, by understanding the primacy of Simon Peter, we can naturally follow that Scriptures meant to demonstrate that Jesus first appeared Cephas (Simon Peter) and then to the Eleven.

I know that sometimes we can get caught up in what seems insignificant… but I think that it is important that we engage even those minor points because it can lead us to more study and deeper understanding of Sacred Scriptures!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MarcoPG]

Hi, Marco!
…please understand that I am not suggesting that you are jumping to any conclusions (when I write I tend to address issues for all audiences (the poster, readers, and lookers) so I tend to throw in terms that engulf both the issue at hand and what I’ve previously encounter.

…hence, jumps and preconceptions usually tint and tilt every issue/argument… it is quite difficult to dissuade any person from what they perceive as true/correct, even when Scriptures may demonstrate exactly the opposite of they view and hold as correct.

…I purposely used the Douay Rheims version of Scriptures to point out that the discourse is speaking of events that happened right after the Resurrection and prior to the inclusion of Matthias as part of the Twelve (Acts 1:12-26) and that the term may still have been used as it was Jesus’ choosing of Twelve (representative of the twelve tribes of Israel), though clearly at the time they were only 11 Disciples.

…and you can see how, by understanding the primacy of Simon Peter, we can naturally follow that Scriptures meant to demonstrate that Jesus first appeared Cephas (Simon Peter) and then to the Eleven.

I know that sometimes we can get caught up in what seems insignificant… but I think that it is important that we engage even those minor points because it can lead us to more study and deeper understanding of Sacred Scriptures!

Maran atha!

Angel

I see my question being misunderstood in the last posts. I can reiterate that I don’t question Peter’s papacy and I don’t have much ground to think there was another Cephas who was another person. I wanted to see how this idea emerged and what they used to come to such a conclusion. Many of those who thought Cephas wasn’t Peter did so because of the incident narrated in Acts 15.
It would be interesting to have an Orthodox answer this points, namely: Why is this “other” Cephas the first witness of the Resurreciton among the apostles? How do we know this?

Funnily, I think the cause of all this is because traditions with little t’s have more importance since, in the Orthodox Church, there isn’t a “Rock” to sort that out.
There are 2

 

[jcrichton]

I see my question being misunderstood in the last posts. I can reiterate that I don’t question Peter’s papacy and I don’t have much ground to think there was another Cephas who was another person. I wanted to see how this idea emerged and what they used to come to such a conclusion. Many of those who thought Cephas wasn’t Peter did so because of the incident narrated in Acts 15.
It would be interesting to have an Orthodox answer this points, namely: Why is this “other” Cephas the first witness of the Resurreciton among the apostles? How do we know this?

Funnily, I think the cause of all this is because traditions with little t’s have more importance since, in the Orthodox Church, there isn’t a “Rock” to sort that out.
There are 2

Hi, Marco!

I did note your statement, I just thought that you were wondering if the Orthodox’s tradition could be traced to Scriptures… I wanted to make sure that we could see that it was not based on the actual Scriptures but more on what was held as a belief (much like Jesus going to India and other places to get His “insights/training”); please, accept my apologies if I have pressed on without considering your position fully or without making myself clearer. :blushing::blushing::blushing:

I concur with your final statement! It is difficult to give up the fullness of the Faith and still surmise that the tradition/s being held are found in the Teaching of the Apostles.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[MarcoPG]

Hi, Marco!

I did note your statement, I just thought that you were wondering if the Orthodox’s tradition could be traced to Scriptures… I wanted to make sure that we could see that it was not based on the actual Scriptures but more on what was held as a belief (much like Jesus going to India and other places to get His “insights/training”); please, accept my apologies if I have pressed on without considering your position fully or without making myself clearer. :blushing::blushing::blushing:

I concur with your final statement! It is difficult to give up the fullness of the Faith and still surmise that the tradition/s being held are found in the Teaching of the Apostles.

Maran atha!

Angel

It attempts to be based in Scripture, let’s say so…

 

[jcrichton]

It attempts to be based in Scripture, let’s say so…

…what is truly sad is that for millions of people it becomes a trap… I remember a particular gentleman that continued to say to me “…show me in Scriptures…” Yet, every time I did he would claim a different interpretation as the valid argument although Scriptures did not support it… and one of my best friends from high school was steadfast against anything God–though he confessed to me to have never had opened a Bible in his life… he was fueled by other people’s beliefs and agendas… :doh2::hypno::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It may be, but how do you conclude he is talking about the 70 apostles and not James, Peter and John, the same 3 who were taken to Mount Tabor and saw our Lord in glory?

I can repeat my take: that James was the bishop in place, Peter was gone, so he places him after the bishop of Jerusalem in the context of this community.

Which is exactly what I was saying, but we disagreed on the time frame.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Hi!
…I think we are on the same page (maybe?)… the Writing is a review of the account of Jesus’ Incarnation, Ministry, Death, and Resurrection… as a matter of course (direction) the Writers seek to position Simon Peter in the “director’s chair,” so to speak… even St. John notes in his Gospel that though he ran faster (younger, perhaps athletic and fit vs. older Peter) and got to the Tomb first, he did not enter it till Peter did. (Coincidentally, that’s another passage that lends itself to misunderstanding and conclusion jumping.)

…so James is ranked as a leader amongst the apostles (there were more than the original Twelve); also, the naming of James demonstrates that St. Paul had some intimacy (knowledge/friendship) with that person.

Maran atha!

Angel

Yep. It would be quite interesting for a person who may not have even been involved in Jesus’ ministry to boss around Peter, the first among the Twelve.