Galatians 2 Doesn't Prove Recognise and Resist Over Decades

Why Recognize And Resist Is The Most Reasonable Position
I Miss Christendom | 22 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baMg1FbVIG4

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

1:19 Two observations.
1) While St. Thomas thinks that Cephas here mentioned is St. Peter, visible head of the Church Militant, Clement the Stromatist thinks it was a namesake. In favour of the name already existing, cfr Caiaphas, the probable Hebrew version of this Aramaic name.
2) Supposing St. Thomas was right, this was one occasion and in this version, St. Peter pretty quickly corrected himself. It was a single occasion, not decades on decades.

Dysmas Dolorem

@DysmasOfBabylon

Cephas of iconium, one of Jesus' 70 disciples.

Darrell VOP

@DarrellVOP-z5e

@DysmasOfBabylon NO. It was Cephas. Peter himself. Galatians 2:11-12. Nothing wrong with correcting a man of the Cloth. Infact, it's encouraged by priests themselves.

CCC 907. from Scripture itself.

2 Tim 2:24-26.

Dysmas Dolorem

@DarrellVOP-z5e where has the Magisterium bound that as a Dogma? And why wouldn't Paul defend the faith against the pharisee high priest? He takes back what he says because he can't speak against God's anointed...

Darrell VOP

Please. Show me where Paul "took back" what he said.

Dogmatic Scripture

The Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, issued by the First Vatican Council

Unless you're referring to something else as "dogmatic scripture." If so clarify.

FYI. PAUL TOO was anointed.
@DysmasOfBabylon

Dysmas Dolorem

@DarrellVOP-z5e But Paul is not the high priest... it's Acts 23 he takes back what he says to the heretical pharisee highpriest, simply because he is the high priest even though he is wrong and Paul is right.

Also Peter had a vision from God which is why he is the one who mandated from Heaven that Jews and Gentiles shouldn't be separated. ACTS 10-11. So why would he go against his own order and the vision he had from God? Especially since he didn't even know the mosaic law Acts 4?

Darrell VOP

Ok. So what is your dispute? That Paul rebuked Peter or Ananias? In Acts 23, he only acknowledged that he did not know Ananias ​was a high priest. He never said he "took back" rather admitted that he was wrong. What is your argument? ALL KNEW THE MOSAIC LAW.

@DysmasOfBabylon

Dysmas Dolorem

@DarrellVOP-z5e acts 4
13Now seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered; and they knew them that they had been with Jesus.

Ignorant of the mosaic law, which is why they didnt understand how they could perform miracles. Paul knew the Mosaic law being a Pharisees.

Dysmas Dolorem

@DarrellVOP-z5e Paul never rebuked either, the idea that Paul rebukes a different Cephas goes back to Clement of Alexandria 200s. The Orthodox Church Venerates this other Cephas of Iconium. Also Iconium is literally in Galatia. So he probably rebuked him where he was the Bishop.

Darrell VOP

Yeah. This talks about John NOT knowing Paul. Read 16. Bthey were order to leave and Conferred with ONE ANOTHER. @DysmasOfBabylon

11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned

Gal 2:11 NASB.

Yeah. Cephas of Iconium was NOT rebuked by Paul because this incident happened in Antioch. Further "the 70" is mentioned WITHOUT Cephas of Iconium never being specified.

Only Clement believed this rejecting every other Church Father.

because he stood condemned

Gal 2:11 NASB.

Yeah. Cephas of Iconium was NOT rebuked by Paul because this incident happened in Antioch. Further "the 70" is mentioned WITHOUT Cephas of Iconium never being specified.

Only Clement believed this rejecting every other Church Father.

Dysmas Dolorem

@DarrellVOP-z5e the first and only document that mentions all 70 disciples mentions him... and the Bible mentions him... and Antioch is like the next town over from Iconium...... so him being a bishop he probably would have been summoned there, he was probably late which is why he was separating from Gentiles. Peter is known for Baptizing 1000s of Gentiles at a time. So your the one fighting to make him look bad despite knowing he had the Holy Spirit. Looks like you have been tricked to me.

Darrell VOP

Where does the bible mention Cephas of Iconum? @DysmasOfBabylon

Dysmas Dolorem

@DarrellVOP-z5e the Orthodox Church says 1 Corinthians 15 5, they venerate him on March 30th December 8th and all 70 disciples are venerated on January 4th.

Darrell VOP

@DysmasOfBabylon Nope. It's wrong.

and that He appeared to [a]Cephas, then to the twelve.

1 Cor 15:5

Its Cephas. Not of Iconium.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e You seem to take "Cephas" as univocally about St. Peter.

If I said "Peter was killed by Albigensians" do you think this means St. Peter the first Pope? No, it means a papal legate, whose killing preceded the Albigensian Crusade.

So, "Peter" does not everywhere and always refer to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.

My point is, the name Caiaphas proves the name "Cephas" was also used by more than the First Pope.

I have no problem with this being Cephas of Iconium, and I have certainly no problem with this not being St. Peter, since in Galatians chapter 1, St. Paul actually calls him Peter and not Cephas.

Darrell VOP

Here is the problem. Your Orthodox view of Cephas vs St. Peter is null and void the ver moment you stated Caiaphas. That was a high priest who actually threatened the apostles. Paul actually REBUKES Caiaphas until Act 23.

Paul clearly stated that he OPPOSED Caphas not Caiaphas. You are comparing apples to oranges here because of a name that sounds similar.

Tell me who was the Apostle called "The most loved" in the bible?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e 1) I'm Roman Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox.
2) If you can't see that Cephas and Caiaphas are exactly the same name in two languages (like George and Giorgio and Jorge in three), you totally lack any clue about how languages work, especially related ones.

My only point on this issue was, Caiaphas proves the name already existed, so, the fact someone is called Cephas doesn't prove he's Simon Peter, Jesus didn't invent the name Cephas. He just applied it to Simon Peter.

"You are comparing apples to oranges here because of a name that sounds similar."

Because a same name. The point is, neither Simon Peter renamed Cephas, nor Caiaphas his opponent, neither of them was the first to carry that name, so, someone else might turn up who also had that name.

And this is especially probable in Galatians 2, because in Galatians 1 Simon Peter actually is referred to, namely as Peter.

Darrell VOP

Perhaps you should actually do some digging. Caiaphas and Cephas DO NOT mean the same thing. Cephas means rock while Caiaphas means hollow. I do not doubt the name Cephas already existed. The probability of "another" Cephas in Galatians is not justified via your theory. Sorry pal. But if you're Roman Catholic, then you certainly do believe a translation that is not our teaching.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e I am aware of both St. Thomas Aquinas and Clement of Alexandria belonging to Tradition.

The Dimond brothers actually argued for Clement of Alexandria.

Last time I checked, they were more anti-Orthodox than I.

As for Caiaphas meaning hollow, I'd like a source, please.

Plus, what do you do about St. Paul already mentioning Simon Bar Jonah as Peter in chapter 1?

Darrell VOP

@hglundahl @hglundahl A better question now becomes, which Cephas if not Peter. Paul mentions Cephas a total of 7 times in the Epistles and Peter 11. Are we now claiming both were different people?

I don't know about St. Thomas Aquinas but I do know that both St. Jerome and St. Agustine were in agreement who Cephas was in Galatians.

Abarim publications is my source.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e OK, St. Thomas Aquinas arguably had it from Sts Augustine and Jerome, then.

I would say in Galatians, there is a chance Peter is the Pope and Cephas isn't, because they are in the same epistle.

I actually don't know if the Orthodox would claim Cephas elsewhere is Cephas of Iconium.

Darrell VOP

@hglundahl who was the disciple whom Jesus loved?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e There are more than one view, it was certain an Apostle, the majority view it is the Son of Zebedee, there are hints it was actually a Cohen.

Why?

Darrell VOP

@hglundahl and who is the son of Zebedee?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e According to the research of Revd. Jean Colson, the Son of Zebedee, brother of James, one of the TWELVE Apostles, died a martyr's death, as reported in a Gallican martyrology. He wrote nothing.

The writer of the New Testament (five of the books) would be a man higher in the Old Testament (a Cohen), but in the New Covenant lesser than the twelve. Nevertheless an actual disciple an actual witness to Gospel events, and notably to the Resurrection.

And why would St. Peter be running with one of the lesser disciples to the Grave? Well, if this disciple was their host. Also explains he had a house in or near Jerusalem to take Our Lady to, on Good Friday, the Fisherman from Galilee wouldn't have had that.

Darrell VOP

@hglundahl Who was the other brother of James?

Don't cut this short. Come one man!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e Zebedee had two sons, John, James.

John is usually, but not by all, not by Revd Jean Colson, identified with the beloved Disciple.

Christ was brother of the OTHER James, not meaning full sibling, since Mary remained a Virgin.

Excuse me, are you trying to quiz me on whether I'm perfectly into the majority position of the Tradition, on identities of authors and disciples? Because I'm not. Jean Colson found marginal support in Patristic tradition for his view.* He wrote the book in 1968, énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait, when he had been priest since 1938, since before Pius XII was Pope.**

Darrell VOP

NO. I am provong that a name does not have to be specific to someone to imply the obvious.

John, not James was the beloved. That much is proven.

Early Church Fathers like Eusebius, Augustine, and Polycrates of Ephesus. @hglundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e "John, not James was the beloved."

The question was not whether John or James was the beloved among the sons of Zebedee. The question was whether John the beloved was son of Zebedee or another rank of disciple.

Jean Colson, who obviously celebrated his name's day Dec 27, hence his interest, concluded the Apostle John who was the Beloved and the NT author was NOT the son of Zebedee, and NOT one of the twelve.

How does strawmanning my position advance your cause?

I've already stated that it doesn't advance the position of FSSPX if I'm wrong on who Cephas in Galatians 2 was, and you have not adressed it:

Supposing St. Thomas was right, this was one occasion and in this version, St. Peter pretty quickly corrected himself. It was a single occasion, not decades on decades.

Darrell VOP

@hglundahl @hglundahl who was the disciple whom Jesus loved?

This is a copy paste of my original question which you avoided once.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e I avoided it once, because it was not to the point.

I then answered it. NOT John of Zebedee, but another John, a lesser disciple, as witness to the Resurrection, so an Apostle.

The host of the Last Supper. The fosterson of Our Lady.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e From your answers to Dysmas of Babylon:

"Only Clement believed this rejecting every other Church Father."

Yeah, right, Clement who lived c. 150 – c. 215 AD in a time machine came across the views of Sts Augustine and Jerome (born 354 and 342) ...

You can hardly make it an issue for him that he didn't agree with Church Fathers who weren't born yet.***

And Trent Session IV doesn't specify "near totality and vast majority of Church Fathers" but "unanimous sentence of the Fathers" ... If Clement was an exception, the other view was not unanimous.

Dysmas Dolorem

@hglundahl he is also lying about what his translation source is saying, he said he used abarim productions, i checked it also means rock man on his source. easily verifiable.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DysmasOfBabylon You mean Caiaphas?

Dysmas Dolorem

@hglundahl yes his own source claims its backet man OR rock man.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DysmasOfBabylon "backet"?

Darrell VOP

@DysmasOfBabylon It means basket man. Stop saying they mean the same thing. I don't know about a time machine. All I know is that Agustine AND Jerome. BOTH Equate Cephas to Peter. Now. I also see you avoided John as well. Lukewarm

A simple search in biblehub will confirm it means hollow.

Dysmas Dolorem

@DarrellVOP-z5e 2786. Képhas comes from 3710. keph which means stone, whichh comes from 3721. kaphaph which means To bend, bow down OR a hollow rock.......... so Hebrew words mean 2 things at once sometimes an the Aramaic vs Hebrew are slightly different. much like in hebrew Bethlehem means House of Bread but in Aramaic it means House of flesh, once u connect both languages u can see how it points to the Eucharist. u also are hiding the fact u changed sources to cover ur tracks. u went from Abarim to Biblehub thinking it was gonna help u but it exposed ur sincerity.

the names actually juxtapositions Peter Cephas from Caiaphas, Peter being the high priest and foundational to the church vs Caiaphas, False Prophet high priest thats a hollow rock/stumbling block, or a Basket that covers the light of the church 5 15.

Darrell VOP

@DysmasOfBabylon 😂😂😂 hide? No child. I affirmed my sources. What you wrote here has no difference. Ah. FYI. I read Clement of Alexandrias "opposition" in the Stromata.

I rest my case and retract what I have said here. As even St. Clement was in understanding that Cephas IS St. Peter. So in that reference, I WAS WRONG.

My work here is done.

FYI. There is NO OTHER CEPHAS in the Bible. Pax.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@DarrellVOP-z5e "I read Clement of Alexandrias "opposition" in the Stromata."

I mentioned him as "the Stromatist" but if I said° that it was in the Stromata, I ask forgiveness.

I looked up the video by the Dimond brothers, and the "real citation" in Clement is 5th book of Hypotyposes, but the available citation now is Eusebius citing this in Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chap. 12 #2.

In the Stromata, the name Cephas is certainly used in the sense of Peter the Prince of Apostles, but I can't see any discussion of Galatians 2 in Stromata, though other chapters of the Epistle are mentioned.

* No support at all would have meant = not a possibility according to Trent Session IV.
** He was ordained when the Church was "in order" and he wrote the book before the New Liturgy, whatever the problems of that may be.
*** Polykrates of Ephesus was born, he was a generation about 20 years earlier than Clemens. They may however have been very unaware of each other.
° Apparently, after an F search of my updated post, I didn't.