Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Buzzard3]

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!

Who's asking that? Not me.

Jesus knew all about the Samaritan woman he'd just met at the well. John 4

Obviously, Jesus had plans for Peter.

Obviously. It's also obvious that Jesus gave Simon the name "rock" in John 1:42 because later on, Jesus said he would build his Church on Peter the "rock" in Matt 16:18.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

You are incorrect.

One only needs to try and obey just one law and they have fallen from grace.

Galatians 5:1-6
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (the law). Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised (law), Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised (law), that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace

Peter was siding with the group that were called the circumcision.

Galatians 2:11-12
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.

Peter withdrew from the Gentiles because Jews do not associate with Gentiles, under the law.

Peter was following the instruction of the circumcision, the Jews under the law.

Peter had well and truly fallen from grace.

 

[klutedavid]

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)?

The church at Antioch wanted to know if the church in Jerusalem. Agreed with the apostle Paul about circumcision and the law of Moses. Because the men that came to Antioch teaching circumcision, came from Judea. More than likely from James.

Galatians 2:12
For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.

Acts 15:2
The brothers determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

 

[klutedavid]

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

Pope means father.

Paul was the father of all the Gentile churches including Rome.

Peter was the father of the church in Jerusalem.

That is a fact that cannot be debated by any historian.

The New Testament tells us who the father (pope) of the Gentile churches was.

Galatians 2:9-10
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 (Jews).

Your contradicting God Himself. No need to bother with historians.

Paul was the pope of all the Gentile churches.

 

[klutedavid]

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

He was sent because of a revelation.

Galatians 2:2
It was because of a revelation that I went up.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

You misunderstand the gravity of Peter's error.

Peter was listening to the circumcision, to the letter of the law, obeying the letter of the law.

Galatians 5:1-6
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (the law). Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised (law), Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised (law), that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.

Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles as the law states. Peter was once again following the law.

 

[Buzzard3]

The church at Antioch wanted to know if the church in Jerusalem. Agreed with the apostle Paul about circumcision and the law of Moses. Because the men that came to Antioch teaching circumcision, came from Judea. More than likely from James.

Galatians 2:12
For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.

Acts 15:2
The brothers determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

You seem to have missed the point. If, as you claim, there were separate Churches - a "Jewish" Church led by the apostles, and a "Gentile" Church led by Paul, why did Paul go to "Jewish" Church in Jerusalem for advice on whether or not GENTILES should follow the law of Moses?

 

[Buzzard3]

He was sent because of a revelation.

Galatians 2:2
It was because of a revelation that I went up.

Where did that "revelation" come from? The Holy Spirit, I would say.

Regardless, you didn't answer my question:
Why did Paul go "by revelation" to the Jewish Church leaders in Jerusalem to have his preaching examined and then approved (Gal 2)?
Why did Paul need his preaching approved and what authority did Peter, James and John have to approve Paul's preaching?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Paul was under the authority of the Church leaders in Jerusalem.

 

[Buzzard3]

Peter had well and truly fallen from grace.

... yet God allowed Peter to write two books of the NT. Not bad for someone whom you claim God had "condemned" and had fallen from grace!

And if you are correct, Jesus made a real boo-boo by choosing Simon as an apostle and changing his name to "rock" (John 1:42). According to you, Peter the "rock" turned to be a complete dud who sank to the bottom of the sea.

 

[SuperCow]

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)

History repeats itself. They were given gifts of Holy Spirit. We no longer have the powers they were given. But regardless, that scripture does nothing to mitigate the obvious fact that Catholics and Protestants (and Adventists and Gnostics and Arians and Unitarians, blah blah blah) have different doctrines, and therefore they can't all be correct. Therefore most "doctrines" must be fallible.

 

[Buzzard3]

History repeats itself. They were given gifts of Holy Spirit. We no longer have the powers they were given. But regardless, that scripture does nothing to mitigate the obvious fact that Catholics and Protestants (and Adventists and Gnostics and Arians and Unitarians, blah blah blah) have different doctrines, and therefore they can't all be correct. Therefore most "doctrines" must be fallible.

Your claim makes no sense - why would Christ provide a temporary Church that provided infallible doctrine for a few years and then let it die out?

 

[SuperCow]

Your claim makes no sense - why would Christ provide a temporary Church that provided infallible doctrine for a few years and then let it die out?

Do you think the Protestant doctrine is infallible?

 

[klutedavid]

You seem to have missed the point. If, as you claim, there were separate Churches - a "Jewish" Church led by the apostles, and a "Gentile" Church led by Paul, why did Paul go to "Jewish" Church in Jerusalem for advice on whether or not GENTILES should follow the law of Moses?

Because the church in Antioch (Gentile church) wanted the know if the apostles in Jerusalem. Actually agreed with what Paul was telling them. Paul proclaimed that the Gentiles were saved by grace through faith. The men from Judea proclaimed Jesus plus obedience to the law. This debate still is underway today. The debate, grace versus legalism, is as old as the hills themselves.

Jewish men, legalists, came from Judea and went to Antioch. They told the Gentiles in Antioch that they must be circumcised, as Jesus was. The apostles are circumcised, so why aren't you circumcised? Or words to that effect.

That created a tremendous debate between those on the side of grace through faith. And those on the side of the law, faith plus law. Jesus was born under the law and lived His whole life, subject to the law. The legalist would rightly assert; disobedience to the law is lawlessness.

Paul would have none of that.

The church in Antioch was deeply confused.

 

[klutedavid]

Your claim makes no sense - why would Christ provide a temporary Church that provided infallible doctrine for a few years and then let it die out?

The church in the first century were warned that the church would be torn apart by wolves.

Acts 20:28-30
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them.

If you check the church letters from the first three centuries. There were many issues that the church wrestled with. One of the main issues was legalism, the law. It was chaos.

In fact, the church creeds were written in an attempt to straighten out the churches. Have a look at the Nicene creed.

 

[renniks]

I don't think it matters whether Christ is referring to Peter as a rock. It's a metaphor to establish that Peter will help to build the faith, which he did. How that would automatically transfer to a line of future popes I don't quite get. I think the whole point of the Old Testament seems to be that man can't be trusted to rule themselves theologically.

Exactly... it's making a connection because it supports to thier theology not because the scripture supports it.

 

[klutedavid]

Your claim makes no sense - why would Christ provide a temporary Church that provided infallible doctrine for a few years and then let it die out?

There was a rift among the Jewish apostles and Paul. That is what the letter to the Galatians is all about. Paul versus Peter and James.

 

[SkyWriting]

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 a historical event. Jesus usually knows people before he meets them.

 

[klutedavid]

You seem to have missed the point. If, as you claim, there were separate Churches - a "Jewish" Church led by the apostles, and a "Gentile" Church led by Paul, why did Paul go to "Jewish" Church in Jerusalem for advice on whether or not GENTILES should follow the law of Moses?

I do not expect you or many other Christians to understand the debate, grace versus legalism. It is a tough issue to deal with.

In fact, you need a very strong understanding of the revelation that Paul received. Paul confronted Peter at Antioch and seriously rebuked Peter to his face. Do you see that there was a serious problem that Peter had?

These are two apostles going head to head in Antioch. Everything was at stake.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You misunderstand the gravity of Peter's error.

Peter was listening to the circumcision, to the letter of the law, obeying the letter of the law.

Galatians 5:1-6
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (the law). Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised (law), Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised (law), that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace.

Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles as the law states. Peter was once again following the law.

No I disagree, Peter feared persecution or ridicule of the Jewish Christians. He was not teaching that Jews can’t eat with Gentiles.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because the church in Antioch (Gentile church) wanted the know if the apostles in Jerusalem. Actually agreed with what Paul was telling them. Paul proclaimed that the Gentiles were saved by grace through faith. The men from Judea proclaimed Jesus plus obedience to the law. This debate still is underway today. The debate, grace versus legalism, is as old as the hills themselves.

Jewish men, legalists, came from Judea and went to Antioch. They told the Gentiles in Antioch that they must be circumcised, as Jesus was. The apostles are circumcised, so why aren't you circumcised? Or words to that effect.

That created a tremendous debate between those on the side of grace through faith. And those on the side of the law, faith plus law. Jesus was born under the law and lived His whole life, subject to the law. The legalist would rightly assert; disobedience to the law is lawlessness.

Paul would have none of that.

The church in Antioch was deeply confused.

Why didn't the confused Gentiles in Antioch simply ask Paul for guidance? Instead, they sent Paul to the Jerusalem leaders for advice.

And why should Paul care what the "Jewish" Church in Jerusalem thought about the matter?