Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
There is nothing in that verse that supports your claim that "Peter had trouble understanding Paul's letters and deferred to Paul".
Peter says Paul's letters can be misunderstood/distorted by "the untaught and unstable". There is not a word there about Peter HIMSELF misunderstanding Paul's letters.

Peter made the mistake on that occassion of not practising what he preached, and for that Paul called him out and corrected him. That doesn't prove Peter was not the leader of the Church.
If the President of the US makes a mistake and is corrected by one of his senior staff, does that mean the President is not in fact the President?

That verse simply implies that James, Peter and John were "pillars" of the Church. It doesn't imply Peter was not the leader.
ALL the apostles were "pillars" of the Church, but Jesus gave the "keys" to PETER ONLY (Matt 16:19), which means Jesus chose PETER to be the leader of the Church.

Well, it seems to me that it was you who blew it and got it wrong, by misinterpreting your Bible.

You omitted that Peter was one of the pillars of the Jewish church.

Paul and Barnabus were the pillars of the Gentile churches.

Galatians 2:9
And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

Peter was definitely the apostle to the circumcised, the Jews.

Paul was most certainly the apostle to the Gentile churches.

The Roman church was a Gentile church and Paul was the pope.

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
I almost missed this one. Where in Galatians does it say that "Paul accused Peter of falling from grace"?

Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Condemned by God is identical to have fallen from grace.

Peter was in Antioch (a Gentile church) and Paul would not permit Peter to corrupt the Gentile church in Antioch.

Galatians 2:14
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

Valletta · Feb 18, 2022

chad kincham said:
And you’ve unwittingly proved my point.

In the original language the New Testament was written in, there are two separate rocks mentioned by Jesus, who said ‘thou art Petros, masculine tense, and upon this PETRA, feminine tense - (the church is called the BRIDE, not the groom) - I will build my congregation.

In French or English or any language bible, when you look at the original koine Greek the New Testament was written in, Peter the pebble is not the bedrock that the church is built on.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the original name that Jesus gave to Simon was Kepha (transliterated as Cephas) which means "Rock" in Aramaic. That original Aramaic name is preserved within the mostly Koine Greek text.

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
I almost missed this one. Where in Galatians does it say that "Paul accused Peter of falling from grace"?

Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Condemned by God is identical to have fallen from grace.

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

Valletta said:
Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the original name that Jesus gave to Simon was Kepha (transliterated as Cephas) which means "Rock" in Aramaic. That original Aramaic name is preserved within the mostly Koine Greek text.

Did Jesus only speak in Aramaic?

Was Jesus able to speak Koine Greek?

There seems to be some debate over this.

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

BNR32FAN said:
Peter had not fallen from grace he stood with fault or worthy of blame.

Here’s the definition of the Greek word that was used.

1. to find fault with, blame
2. to accuse, condemn

You must be kidding.

You gave the definition, '2. to accuse, condemn'.

Now look up 'condemn'.

The majority of Bible translations have condemned.

Are you a Koine Greek scholar?

Valletta · Feb 18, 2022

klutedavid said:
Did Jesus only speak in Aramaic?

Was Jesus able to speak Koine Greek?

There seems to be some debate over this.

"And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him said "You are Simon, son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated as Peter). John 1:42 CPDV Cephas means "Rock" in Aramaic.

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

Valletta said:
"And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him said "You are Simon, son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated as Peter). John 1:42 CPDV Cephas means "Rock" in Aramaic.

The question I asked is basically; did Jesus also speak Koine Greek.

Everyone assumes that because Jesus spoke in Aramiac to Peter, that Jesus only spoke Aramaic. The common language of the Roman Empire was Koine Greek. Koine Greek had been spoken across the Roman Empire for two hundred years.

Try not to establish any doctrine on the basis of one verse.

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
For one thing, by giving "the "keys" to only one man, Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church.

Leader of the church in Jerusalem. Peter was an apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

You assume that Peter is the father of the universal church, the pope.

1 Corinthians 4:15
For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Paul was the father of the Gentile churches, i.e., the Roman Church and the Corinthian Church.

That is in black and white!

SuperCow · Feb 18, 2022

Valletta said:
Using your logic, if by inference doctrine is fallible then by inference the Bible must be fallible.

I don't see how the two are related. Just because someone's doctrine is fallible has nothing to do with the fallibility of the Bible. Doctrine must be fallible or there wouldn't be so many different doctrines claiming to be based on the same set of books.

klutedavid · Feb 18, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
Well, that is what the text suggests - there was much debate on the matter before Peter rose to speak ... after Peter spoke there is no mention of any further debate - in fact, the text says the assembly "fell silent". That implies that the matter (of whether or not the Gentiles should follow the law of Moses) was settled ... by Peter.

What did Paul and Barnabus say regarding whether or not Gentile Christians should follow the law of Moses? Nothing.

Neither did James really - he merely agreed with Peter, who said the law of Moses should not be imposed on Gentile Christians ("10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?").

Another consideration is that the troublemakers were Jewish believers under the local authority of James, so after Peter's ruling, it was up to James - as Bishop of said troublemakers - to remedy the situation.
Hence, James says, "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God" (v.19).
When James says "we" he is perhaps referring to his own disciples - the Jews who were troubling the Gentiles by telling them they must follow the law of Moses. So it's entirely possible that James was speaking as a local Bishop, not as the leader of the Church.

Another point worth considering is that since the Council was held in the Jerusalem, James was the "host" Bishop, so it was his (ceremonial) role to deliver the final and overall judgement of the Council.

In Jerusalem the the pillars of the Jewish church were James, Peter, and John.

Paul and Barnabas had no papal authority in Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were apostles to the Gentile Churches (Rome, Corinth, etc). Peter was an apostle to the Jews only.

Galatians 2:7
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.

We can read the text clearly. Peter was the pope of the church in Jerusalem and Paul was the pope of the Roman church.

Galatians 2:9
And recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

There can be no debate that the true apostle to the church in Rome, was pope Paul.

I will ask you a direct question to enforce my argument.

Who wrote the letter to the Romans, Peter or Paul?

Who had authority over the church in Rome?

BNR32FAN · Feb 19, 2022

klutedavid said:
You must be kidding.

You gave the definition, '2. to accuse, condemn'.

Now look up 'condemn'.

The majority of Bible translations have condemned.

Are you a Koine Greek scholar?

You don’t have to be a Greek scholar to read a simple lexicon. That word is only used 3 times in the Bible and is used in the sense of to find fault or blame with someone. It’s used in 1 John 20-21 and Galatians 2:11. The word your referring to is katadikazō not kataginōskō.

BNR32FAN · Feb 19, 2022

klutedavid said:
You must be kidding.

You gave the definition, '2. to accuse, condemn'.

Now look up 'condemn'.

The majority of Bible translations have condemned.

Are you a Koine Greek scholar?

if Peter would’ve died at that very moment he wouldn’t have went to hell for refraining from eating with the Gentiles. That’s not a sin punishable by eternity in the lake of fire.

Buzzard3 · Feb 19, 2022

klutedavid said:
Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Condemned by God is identical to have fallen from grace.

Nonsense.
"he stood condemned" simply means Peter was guilty of an offense. It doesn't mean he was condemned by God, nor that he fell from grace.

Buzzard3 · Feb 19, 2022

klutedavid said:
Roman church was a Gentile church and Paul was the pope.

In that case, why did Paul go to PETER and the other JEWISH Church leaders in Jerusalem for advice regarding whether or not GENTILE Christians are required to follow the law of Moses (Acts 15)?

Why did the JEWISH leaders in Jerusalem decide what GENTILE Christians should do or not do (Acts15)?

Buzzard3 · Feb 19, 2022

klutedavid said:
Leader of the church in Jerusalem. Peter was an apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

In Matt 16:18, Jesus didn't say anything about "the church in Jerusalem".

You assume that Peter is the father of the universal church, the pope.

Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to PETER ONLY (Matt 16:19). Jesus did not give the "keys" to Paul.

1 Corinthians 4:15
For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Paul was the father of the Gentile churches, i.e., the Roman Church and the Corinthian Church.

That is in black and white!

By "father", Paul simply means spiritual advisor and elder; it doesn't mean he was the leader of the Church.

Buzzard3 · Feb 19, 2022

klutedavid said:
There can be no debate that the true apostle to the church in Rome, was pope Paul.

Cite one Church historian who refers to "pope Paul".

Albion · Feb 19, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
John 1:42 describes the very first time Jesus met Simon, who became an apostle (aka Peter). Jesus said to Simon, "You are Simon, the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which translates as 'Peter' and means 'rock')".

Why did Jesus give the name "rock" to a man he'd just met ...

It's almost stunning to have any Christian ask how God (in the person of Jesus) could have known anything about Simon Peter before interviewing him!

This is the same god about whom Jesus said that even a sparrow doesn't fall without God knowing it.

Obviously, Jesus had plans for Peter. It's just that some people are taught that the plans were more about people completely unrelated to Peter who lived many years after him, i.e. the Papacy, whereas all the Scriptural evidence shows that it was about the earliest events in the history of Christianity.

Buzzard3 · Feb 19, 2022

klutedavid said:
Paul and Barnabas had no papal authority in Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were apostles to the Gentile Churches (Rome, Corinth, etc). Peter was an apostle to the Jews only.

Why did the Holy Spirit send Paul to the Jewish Church leaders in Jerusalem to have his preaching examined and approved (Galations 2)?

Buzzard3 · Feb 19, 2022

SuperCow said:
Doctrine must be fallible or there wouldn't be so many different doctrines claiming to be based on the same set of books.

What the ...?

"And his (Christ) gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers ... so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles." (Eph 4)

Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency