Which historical version of the Catholic Church is infallibly correct?

[Walpole]

This couldn't be more ignorant if you tried harder.

Feel free to offer a refutation and or put forth an objection.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Feel free to offer a refutation and or put forth an objection.

Wow! Was He conceived by the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit clean, spotless, pure? Oh and let me not forget to mention those wolves and Judas' that are always entering the church. " You will know them by their fruits"- works. Now, can you say Immaculate? What is something that is Immaculate class.....

 

[Walpole]

Wow! Was He conceived by the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit clean, spotless, pure? Oh and let me not forget to mention those wolves and Judas' that are always entering the church. " You will know them by their fruits"- works. Now, can you say Immaculate? What is something that is Immaculate class.....

Conceived by the Holy Spirit means the Holy Spirit was the active principle of His conception in the womb of Mary. It does not mean unto likeness of species, as we can say you were born of your father. It is for this reason we do not say Christ is the Son of the Holy Spirit.

Mary, by contrast, supplied the matter of His conception unto the likeness of species. It is for this reason we do say Christ is the Son of Mary.

This is Chalcedonian Christology 101.

 

[jaybo]

Are you referring to trivial stuff like the size of hat he wears?
Or are you referring to serious stuff - i.e the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

If the former - don't waste my time.
If the latter then provide some actual example with proof it has changed.


That is a Protestant claim.
The Catholic Church is not, and never has been, sola scriptura.

The Catholic Church is not, and never has been, sola scriptura, is entirely correct. The Bible is God's word. Everything else has been added on to it.

 

[Walpole]

The Catholic Church is not, and never has been, sola scriptura, is entirely correct. The Bible is God's word. Everything else has been added on to it.

You have quite the dilemma.

---> "The Bible is God's word" has itself been added, as there is no verse in the Bible which states this, let alone a verse which states which books comprise said Bible.

 

[Mungo]

You evaded the obvious implication Peter was not infallible.

The issue was not about infallibility but impeccability.
Like many Protestants you confuse them.

As for Cephas, Paul switches from PETROS to Cephas in Galatians 2:9 (TR) because PETROS("Firstborn") didn't covey the stone metaphors Paul wanted for his caustic review of "those who seemed to be somewhat…seemed to be pillars", these lamps of fire guiding the people imparted no light to Paul (cp Gal 2:6,9 with Ex 13:21; cf also Berachoth 28b).

The issue was Gal 2:14 not Gal 2:9
Petros means rock not first born.

Peter is both a pillar and a KEPHA stone of grace, a small precious stone benefiting the holder:

Peter is rock. Cephas means rock. Petros means rock.

Therefore, Peter failed both as a pillar and as a stone of grace. Rather than a guiding light to the Gospel of Christ, Peter cowers in fear following followers James failed to guide correctly, into error…even against the vision God gave him! (Ac 10:34). Ironic indeed for a pillar and a kepha.

As would be expected in unsound eclectic texts that deviate from the Byzantine family of mss, the change from Cephas (Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) to petros (2:7, 8) is purely random, a product of confusion.

Paul intentionally switched to Cephas as the context itself demonstrates.

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

Not a product of confusion.
I think it is you that are confused.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Have you forgotten what your have been arguing??? Scroll back up.

Once again, Jesus Christ is sinless because He is God. Here again is Chalcedon...

"So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us."

Your argument hinges on Christ being divided into separate parts, quantities and portions. This is in contradiction to Chalcedon.


Exactly.

Again, it appears you have forgotten what you posted. Your post divides Christ. He cannot be divided. He is immaculate by virtue of the fact that He is God.

I find most Protestants claim they agree with the Church's Councils, but in reality they actually have no idea what the Councils taught. For if they knew what the Councils taught, they would see their own beliefs are incompatible with that of the Council Fathers.

Your posts here are a good example. The argument you put forth in your prior posts contradict Chalcedon.

What are you calling a "primitive Catholic"?

Because I am a primitive Catholic. Also primitive Eastern Orthodox. Also, Christian. All the same thing.

I never said or implied Christ wasn't impeccably immaculate by virtue of being God the Son, that is a division you created to declare me heretical. You created a division and accused me of believing it.

It is you who violate Chalcedon, confusing the natures of Christ. His divine nature did not eat, drink, die and rise from the dead.

Its clear your only goal is to repeat nonsense and claim victory. That is sad.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The issue was not about infallibility but impeccability.
Like many Protestants you confuse them.



The issue was Gal 2:14 not Gal 2:9
Petros means rock not first born.


Peter is rock. Cephas means rock. Petros means rock.


Not a product of confusion.
I think it is you that are confused.

I disagree. Petros in Jesus' day was an Aramaic name meaning "Firstborn". When transliterated into Greek is spelled "Petros". Greek speaking Christians naturally mistook it for petros-stone. That is a mistake I addressed on my site:

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

 

[Mungo]

I disagree. Petros in Jesus' day was an Aramaic name meaning "Firstborn". When transliterated into Greek is spelled "Petros". Greek speaking Christians naturally mistook it for petros-stone. That is a mistake I addressed on my site:

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

Petros was a Greek translation of the Aramaic Kepha, both of which meant Rock.
It is Strong 2786
Strong's Concordance

Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter​

Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas')
Definition: "a rock", Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Usage: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.

 

[jaybo]

Petros was a Greek translation of the Aramaic Kepha, both of which meant Rock.
It is Strong 2786
Strong's Concordance

Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter​

Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas')
Definition: "a rock", Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Usage: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.

Peter was also called a "stumbling block" by Jesus. Matthew 16:23, "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

 

[Mungo]

Peter was also called a "stumbling block" by Jesus. Matthew 16:23, "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Walpole]

Because I am a primitive Catholic. Also primitive Eastern Orthodox. Also, Christian. All the same thing.

This reminds me of something St. Augustine wrote...

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship, none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, IV)

I never said or implied Christ wasn't impeccably immaculate by virtue of being God the Son, that is a division you created to declare me heretical. You created a division and accused me of believing it.

It is you who violate Chalcedon, confusing the natures of Christ. His divine nature did not eat, drink, die and rise from the dead.

Its clear your only goal is to repeat nonsense and claim victory. That is sad.

Thankfully this forum is gaslight-proof as all your posts are recorded on this site so all one has to do is merely scroll back to see what you have written. What you have written is there, so own it.

To save you and other viewers the trouble of scrolling back, let me remind you of what you have posted, which contradicts orthodox Chalcedonian Christology. Here are your quotations, along with links to the actual posts.

“Jesus Christ never calls the Father His Saviour, BECAUSE He was immaculately conceived.” - You

“Because Catholics claim Mary was immaculately CONCEIVED, Christ's deity is not pertinent. His human nature immaculately CONCEIVED is.” - You

“Christ was immaculately conceived because the Holy Spirit made it so, Mary had nothing to do with it.” - You


These statements are heterodox because you have divided Christ into separate parts, quantities and portions. You statements divide Christ into two hypostases or supposita. Christ is NOT immaculate because He was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. He is immaculate because He is a Divine Person and is thus immaculate and sinless by His very essence.


Here again are the Fathers at Chalcedon...

"So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us." - Council of Chalcedon, Session V, 451 A.D

 

[jaybo]

Irrelevant to this discussion.

You wrote "Petros was a Greek translation of the Aramaic Kepha, both of which meant Rock." Peter was called a rock by Jesus. He was also called a stumbling block. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

 

[Mungo]

You wrote "Petros was a Greek translation of the Aramaic Kepha, both of which meant Rock." Peter was called a rock by Jesus. He was also called a stumbling block. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

I wrote that in response to Alfred Persson's claim that "Petros" was Aramaic for "Firstborn".
Your comment was irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[jaybo]

I wrote that in response to Alfred Persson's claim that "Petros" was Aramaic for "Firstborn".
Your comment was irrelevant to the discussion.

In your opinion only.

 

[Alfred Persson]

The issue was not about infallibility but impeccability.
Like many Protestants you confuse them.



The issue was Gal 2:14 not Gal 2:9
Petros means rock not first born.


Peter is rock. Cephas means rock. Petros means rock.


Not a product of confusion.
I think it is you that are confused.

As Paul didn't believe Peter infallible, a different version of Catholicism claims he was:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I made a protest against him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. (Gal. 2:11 BBE)

In the NT the Cephas is "precious stone, stone of grace", not petra rock like Christ:

The word play in Matthew 16:18 is a double entendre on same spelling in the Aramaic/Greek homonym petros (Aramaic פטרוס “petros”; Greek πέτρος “petros”)

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…"-(Matthew 16:18 KJV)

Both Aramaic and Greek meanings of PeTRos are used in this ASYMMETRIC JANUS PARALLELISM

The Aramaic sense (PeTRos PeTeR) SURNAMES*** Simon as the "First" born of the divinely implanted "word of faith" (cp protos, Mt 10:2; cf Romans 10:8)… and the Greek (petros / petra rock) identifies the profession “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God” as the immutable "truth" (petros/rock from which flows abundant life), upon that very rock the church is built.

"Thou art Firstborn (PeTRos) and upon this very (immutable life giving TRUTH=) petros>petra ROCK [drinking its living water is what gave you life], I will build my church."

Compare:

KJV Matthew 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock(petra):

KJV 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.

This is consistent with Petros being a transliteration of the Aramaic PTR, and not a translation of Kepha. ..the classic confusion of PeTRos with petros(stone) a circular reasoning fallacy.


Old Testament Aramaic translations confirm Cepha mean precious stone, and the allusion to water coming out of it that sustaining life explains the metaphor of both Peter and the church as "lively (cepha) stones" in 1 Peter 2:5

Pr 3:15 "more precious than rubies,"
Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos;

Pr 17:8 "stone of grace," Heb. eben
cheen, lxx misthos charitwn, gracious


Compare:

כֵּיף, כֵּיפָא I ch. same, rock, stone, ball. Targ. Is. 32:2. Targ. Prov. 17:8; a. fr.—Y. Shek. V, 48d היי דין כ׳ מקורר וכ׳ which rock (when bored) will give forth water, and which. &c., v. שְׁרַבְרוּבֵי.—Pl. כֵּיפִין, כֵּיפַיָּא, כֵּיפֵי. Targ. Y. I Deut. 32:13. Targ. 1 Kings 19:11. Targ. Ps. 104:18; a. fr.—כיפי טבתא pearls, jewels. Targ. Prov. 3:15; a. e.—M. Kat. 25b כ׳ דנורא (Ms. M. טיפי) fire-balls; כ׳ דברדא hail-stones. Y. Ab. Zar. IV, 43d דאת … אילין כ׳ thou must remove these stones. Keth. 112a p 635 bot. מנשק כ׳ דעכו kissed the rocks (Rashi: corals) of the shore of Ptolemais (as sacred ground); Y. Shebi. IV, end, 35c לכֵיפָתָא. Ib. מתקל כֵּיפֵי weighed the stones (to demonstrate his appreciation of the sacred ground); a. fr.—Esp. כֵּיפֵי (v. supra) precious stones, jewelry (prob. amber, v. כֵּיפָה). Erub. 96b; Keth. 81b כ׳ תלא לה has he jewelry suspended on it (his opinion)?, i. e. must his opinion absolutely be accepted?—B. Bath. 52a B. Mets. 35a אפקיד כ׳ וכ׳ gave jewelry in trust &c. Ib. הב לי כֵּיפַי (Ms. M. כֵּיפַאי) give me my jewelry back; a. e.—3) also כַּפָּא (cmp. גֵּיף, כַּף &c.) shore, border. Targ. Jud. 7:12. Targ. Is. 19:7 ככֵיפֵיה (ed. Lag. ככפיה; ed. Wil. בכיפי, corr. acc.) like its shore.—Pes. 4a, v. אֲסִיסְנָא. Ned. 40a bot. נהרא מכֵּיפֵיה וכ׳ the Euphrates grows from (the waters coming down) its shores (not from rain); Sabb. 65b; Bekh. 55b. Koh. R. to XI, 1 הוה מיטמר בכיף ימא (some ed. בכֵף) was hiding himself at the sea-shore; a. e.—Pl. as ab. Targ. Is. 8:7 כֵּיפוֹהִי; Targ. Josh. 3:15 (some ed. כַּפּוֹהִי).—Sabb. 65b מכֵּיפֵי some ed. (v. supra).—M. Kat. l. c. נשוק כ׳ … אהדדי the shores of … touched each other (the waters rising to the level of the shores; Rashi: the arches of the ruined bridges, v. infra).—4) arch, vault, v. כִּיפְתָא.—5) cap, v. כִּיפָּה.—6) bundle, sheaf, v. כַּפָּא. [כיפא, Tosef. Mikv. IV, 5, v. כִּיפָּה, end.]

Jastrow, M. (1903). In A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature and II (Vol. 1, pp. 634–635). Luzac & Co.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

 

[Alfred Persson]

This reminds me of something St. Augustine wrote...

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship, none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." (Contra Epistolam quam vocant Fundamenti, IV)

You DO NOT believe the same version of Catholicism as Augustine, he didn't have infallible popes and immaculately conceived Mary etc.

And from my perspective the only heretics here are you who claim to be Catholic, but have long since departed from the Catholicism I see in the New Testament. No infallible popes or immaculately conceived Mary in the Bible either.

Catholicism left me behind as they developed their own dogmas. Because they had the power of the Empire they took the name Catholic with them, while they persecuted us.

Don't make it right they "won" leaving only a small remnant they were unable to kill. Christians are pesky followers of Christ, they just refuse to die.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Petros was a Greek translation of the Aramaic Kepha, both of which meant Rock.
It is Strong 2786
Strong's Concordance

Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter​

Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas')
Definition: "a rock", Cephas, a name given to the apostle Peter
Usage: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.

Lexicons are wrong, they need to be updated to reflect the latest evidence. The Greek petros means rock, but Peter's name was Semitic, not Greek. From the Hebrew PTR (Strong's 6363) meaning "firstborn", which in Greek was transliterated as Petros.

Hence Greek speaking Christians, not knowing the Aramaic culture of Christ, thought it meant "petros stone."

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

By the way, that really blows out of the water the fiction popes are infallible, not one of them knew Petros/Peter means "Firstborn" in Aramaic.

 

[Mungo]

As Paul didn't believe Peter infallible, a different version of Catholicism claims he was:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I made a protest against him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. (Gal. 2:11 BBE)

In the NT the Cephas is "precious stone, stone of grace", not petra rock like Christ:

The word play in Matthew 16:18 is a double entendre on same spelling in the Aramaic/Greek homonym petros (Aramaic פטרוס “petros”; Greek πέτρος “petros”)

"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…"-(Matthew 16:18 KJV)

Both Aramaic and Greek meanings of PeTRos are used in this ASYMMETRIC JANUS PARALLELISM

The Aramaic sense (PeTRos PeTeR) SURNAMES*** Simon as the "First" born of the divinely implanted "word of faith" (cp protos, Mt 10:2; cf Romans 10:8)… and the Greek (petros / petra rock) identifies the profession “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God” as the immutable "truth" (petros/rock from which flows abundant life), upon that very rock the church is built.

"Thou art Firstborn (PeTRos) and upon this very (immutable life giving TRUTH=) petros>petra ROCK [drinking its living water is what gave you life], I will build my church."

Compare:

KJV Matthew 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock(petra):

KJV 1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock(petra) that followed them: and that Rock(petra) was Christ.

This is consistent with Petros being a transliteration of the Aramaic PTR, and not a translation of Kepha. ..the classic confusion of PeTRos with petros(stone) a circular reasoning fallacy.


Old Testament Aramaic translations confirm Cepha mean precious stone, and the allusion to water coming out of it that sustaining life explains the metaphor of both Peter and the church as "lively (cepha) stones" in 1 Peter 2:5

Pr 3:15 "more precious than rubies,"
Heb. paniyn, lxx lithos;

Pr 17:8 "stone of grace," Heb. eben
cheen, lxx misthos charitwn, gracious


Compare:

כֵּיף, כֵּיפָא I ch. same, rock, stone, ball. Targ. Is. 32:2. Targ. Prov. 17:8; a. fr.—Y. Shek. V, 48d היי דין כ׳ מקורר וכ׳ which rock (when bored) will give forth water, and which. &c., v. שְׁרַבְרוּבֵי.—Pl. כֵּיפִין, כֵּיפַיָּא, כֵּיפֵי. Targ. Y. I Deut. 32:13. Targ. 1 Kings 19:11. Targ. Ps. 104:18; a. fr.—כיפי טבתא pearls, jewels. Targ. Prov. 3:15; a. e.—M. Kat. 25b כ׳ דנורא (Ms. M. טיפי) fire-balls; כ׳ דברדא hail-stones. Y. Ab. Zar. IV, 43d דאת … אילין כ׳ thou must remove these stones. Keth. 112a p 635 bot. מנשק כ׳ דעכו kissed the rocks (Rashi: corals) of the shore of Ptolemais (as sacred ground); Y. Shebi. IV, end, 35c לכֵיפָתָא. Ib. מתקל כֵּיפֵי weighed the stones (to demonstrate his appreciation of the sacred ground); a. fr.—Esp. כֵּיפֵי (v. supra) precious stones, jewelry (prob. amber, v. כֵּיפָה). Erub. 96b; Keth. 81b כ׳ תלא לה has he jewelry suspended on it (his opinion)?, i. e. must his opinion absolutely be accepted?—B. Bath. 52a B. Mets. 35a אפקיד כ׳ וכ׳ gave jewelry in trust &c. Ib. הב לי כֵּיפַי (Ms. M. כֵּיפַאי) give me my jewelry back; a. e.—3) also כַּפָּא (cmp. גֵּיף, כַּף &c.) shore, border. Targ. Jud. 7:12. Targ. Is. 19:7 ככֵיפֵיה (ed. Lag. ככפיה; ed. Wil. בכיפי, corr. acc.) like its shore.—Pes. 4a, v. אֲסִיסְנָא. Ned. 40a bot. נהרא מכֵּיפֵיה וכ׳ the Euphrates grows from (the waters coming down) its shores (not from rain); Sabb. 65b; Bekh. 55b. Koh. R. to XI, 1 הוה מיטמר בכיף ימא (some ed. בכֵף) was hiding himself at the sea-shore; a. e.—Pl. as ab. Targ. Is. 8:7 כֵּיפוֹהִי; Targ. Josh. 3:15 (some ed. כַּפּוֹהִי).—Sabb. 65b מכֵּיפֵי some ed. (v. supra).—M. Kat. l. c. נשוק כ׳ … אהדדי the shores of … touched each other (the waters rising to the level of the shores; Rashi: the arches of the ruined bridges, v. infra).—4) arch, vault, v. כִּיפְתָא.—5) cap, v. כִּיפָּה.—6) bundle, sheaf, v. כַּפָּא. [כיפא, Tosef. Mikv. IV, 5, v. כִּיפָּה, end.]

Jastrow, M. (1903). In A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature and II (Vol. 1, pp. 634–635). Luzac & Co.; G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Gal 2:11 is not about Papal infallibility.
We went through this in your thread Question about Infallibility where I explained what it really meant (post #4).
To which you responded

Thanks for correcting my misimpression.

But it seems you learnt nothing.

 

[Mungo]

Lexicons are wrong, they need to be updated to reflect the latest evidence. The Greek petros means rock, but Peter's name was Semitic, not Greek. From the Hebrew PTR (Strong's 6363) meaning "firstborn", which in Greek was transliterated as Petros.

Hence Greek speaking Christians, not knowing the Aramaic culture of Christ, thought it meant "petros stone."

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News, Today - Rapture Ready News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

By the way, that really blows out of the water the fiction popes are infallible, not one of them knew Petros/Peter means "Firstborn" in Aramaic.

Lexicons are not wrong.
You are wrong.

Peter is referred to by the Aramaic Kepha in several places. It means Rock
Kepha is translated into the Greek Petros in the Greek version of NT that we have.
The Greek Petros mean Rock.
We can see this very clearly in John 1:42 where Jesus renames Simon.

σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος
In English lettering
sy klēthēsē Kēphas ho hermēneuetai Petros
You will be called Kephas [Aramaic] which is translated [into Greek] Petros [or English Peter]

The footnote for this (Peter0 says in the RSV From the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, respectively