Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[A_Thinker]

It says "living stones", so where did you get "little stones" from?

Yes, it says "living stones" as opposed to "little stones".

What's your point ... ?

 

[FredVB]

Peter was important in the foundation of the church. That is the case whether there were popes or not, in fact they are irrelevant to that. This rock that the church was built on was Peter's confession to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

There are many things done in churches, actually maybe most things including the very structures of the buildings, that are from traditions and not from the Bible. The issue we should see is just with those traditions elevated to being as scriptures of the Bible for believers going there, and those should be questioned when they are put in place of things from God's revelation, and any of those having God's perfect will being totally disregarded.

How do you come to the conclusion that the rock was Peter's confession, and not Peter himself.
In scripture, Jesus appears to be talking directly to Peter. You are the rock and on this rock, defines an object, Peter, and refers the object as built upon. Our Lord even says He will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. He did not say that to a confession, but to a person, Peter.

The argument of Petra vs Petros has been explained due to the masculine vs feminine nouns of the language. If Our Lord had meant Peter was a little rock, He would have called him Lithos. Even so, how is calling Peter a little rock lead us to the conclusion that the real rock is a confession?

It is not a plain reading of scripture but an interpretation meant to fit a human conclusion

There is all your church with its popes and all its history being justified with this interpretation you and others use for it from just this one verse and no others in all the Bible to support that. The confession of Peter of Jesus being Christ and Son of God being important in the gospel message for salvation is abundantly supported in the Bible. The Bible also requires a testimony to be established with at least two or three witnesses, and that is a great approach in having any interpretation of passages from scriptures for doctrine. "You are Peter" and "on this rock I will build my church" are not just referring to the same rock, that is just a claim not adequately supported from scriptures.

 

[FredVB]

So many verses in the Bible show that God is love and is full of compassion, and with God's fair justice it is why Jesus Christ the incarnation of God came, showing the way for us and bearing the burden of penalties of our sins according to that fair justice, for any of us, God caring, that not any have to perish, in the rebellion against God, when they respond, God making the way for them that they know it, to repent in faith for that restoration through Christ. Those that turn from that lose that opportunity, and still will perish, with what waits in fair justice for eternity. What we have in fair justice available through Christ who is worthy will be bliss with him.

 

[Buzzard3]

There is all your church with its popes and all its history being justified with this interpretation you and others use for it from just this one verse and no others in all the Bible to support that.

"just this one verse"? Hardly. There is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, for starters, which has been handed down from the apostles.

Can you explain why Peter is mentioned about 70 times in Acts, whereas the other two most prominent apostles - James and John - are each mentioned less than ten times?

Please read this:
Library : The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs

"You are Peter" and "on this rock I will build my church" are not just referring to the same rock, that is just a claim not adequately supported from scriptures.

The first thing you need to do is get the idea out of your head that everything is in the Bible. The CHURCH is the primary source of instruction and truth, not the Bible. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around.

The Catholic teaching that Peter is the "rock" in Matt 16:18 is supported by the very next verse (which Protestants always ignore) - in verse 19 Jesus gives Peter a divine power - the "keys of the kingdom of heaven".

Btw, the very first thing Jesus ever said to Simon was, "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas (which means 'rock')" - John 1:42. So Jesus had obviously decided to give Simon the name "rock" before they'd even met. Please explain.

 

[FredVB]

"just this one verse"? Hardly. There is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, for starters, which has been handed down from the apostles.

Can you explain why Peter is mentioned about 70 times in Acts, whereas the other two most prominent apostles - James and John - are each mentioned less than ten times?

"Sacred Tradition", which Christ never spoke of, does not change your one verse with your interpretation in the Bible from being that, it leaves you with your interpretation that Peter is the same rock being your own interpretation. Others are not obliged to accept that. I don't have to explain the number of times anyone is mentioned in the Bible. Except maybe Yahweh. Named as Yahweh almost 7000 times in scriptures as originally written by name. How many do I see remembering Yahweh by name as we were told to do? I don't see you doing that. While you say numbers of times mean something. But it would not mean Peter is made pope, or that he is even the same rock

Please read this:
Library : The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs

No. I am not interested. If you really want those proofs known you can mention them yourself. But I know already Peter is mentioned in a good number of places. He was a prominent figure. Yet that does not mean he was made pope, or that he is the same rock. That is really reaching.

The first thing you need to do is get the idea out of your head that everything is in the Bible. The CHURCH is the primary source of instruction and truth, not the Bible. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around.

No. I don't need to think the Church is the primary source. And no, the Bible preceded it, the old testament of Christ came, the new testament of the Bible from the writings of the apostles and prominent followers of the first generation following Christ. The first church forming, that in Jerusalem, was entirely of Jewish believers in Christ, sharing entirely with each others according to what any needed, they were not like churches now, and James the brother of Jesus Christ led the church.

The Catholic teaching that Peter is the "rock" in Matt 16:18 is supported by the very next verse (which Protestants always ignore) - in verse 19 Jesus gives Peter a divine power - the "keys of the kingdom of heaven".

Btw, the very first thing Jesus ever said to Simon was, "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas (which means 'rock')" - John 1:42. So Jesus had obviously decided to give Simon the name "rock" before they'd even met. Please explain.

No, it is still your interpretation. That Jesus is Christ, Son of God, is central in the gospel message is shown throughout passages, not that Peter is the same rock.

"just this one verse"? Hardly. There is the Sacred Tradition of the Church, for starters, which has been handed down from the apostles.

Can you explain why Peter is mentioned about 70 times in Acts, whereas the other two most prominent apostles - James and John - are each mentioned less than ten times?

"Sacred Tradition", which Christ never spoke of, does not change your one verse with your interpretation in the Bible from being that, it leaves you with your interpretation that Peter is the same rock being your own interpretation. Others are not obliged to accept that. I don't have to explain the number of times anyone is mentioned in the Bible. Except maybe Yahweh. Named as Yahweh almost 7000 times in scriptures as originally written by name. How many do I see remembering Yahweh by name as we were told to do? I don't see you doing that. While you say numbers of times mean something. But it would not mean Peter is made pope, or that he is even the same rock

Please read this:
Library : The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs

No. I am not interested. If you really want those proofs known you can mention them yourself. But I know already Peter is mentioned in a good number of places. He was a prominent figure. Yet that does not mean he was made pope, or that he is the same rock. That is really reaching.

The first thing you need to do is get the idea out of your head that everything is in the Bible. The CHURCH is the primary source of instruction and truth, not the Bible. The Bible came from the Church, not the other way around.

No. I don't need to think the Church is the primary source. And no, the Bible preceded it, the old testament of Christ came, the new testament of the Bible from the writings of the apostles and prominent followers of the first generation following Christ. The first church forming, that in Jerusalem, was entirely of Jewish believers in Christ, sharing entirely with each others according to what any needed, they were not like churches now, and James the brother of Jesus Christ led the church.

The Catholic teaching that Peter is the "rock" in Matt 16:18 is supported by the very next verse (which Protestants always ignore) - in verse 19 Jesus gives Peter a divine power - the "keys of the kingdom of heaven".

Btw, the very first thing Jesus ever said to Simon was, "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas (which means 'rock')" - John 1:42. So Jesus had obviously decided to give Simon the name "rock" before they'd even met. Please explain.

No, it is still your interpretation. That Jesus is Christ, Son of God, is central in the gospel message is shown throughout passages, not that Peter is the same rock.

 

[Buzzard3]

Sacred Tradition", which Christ never spoke of

So what?

Sacred Tradition", which Christ never spoke of

The apostles did:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2Thess 2:15)

James the brother of Jesus Christ led the church

If James was the leader of the Church, why did Jesus give the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to PETER, not James? (Matt 16:19)

If James was the leader of the Church, why is he mentioned only 7 times in Acts, compared to Peter, who is mentioned 70 times?

If James is the brother of Jesus and therefore the son of Mary, why did Jesus entrust JOHN to look after Mary, the mother of Jesus?
"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home." (John 19: 25-27)

That Jesus is Christ, Son of God, is central in the gospel message is shown throughout passages, not that Peter is the same rock.

Why did Jesus give Simon the name "rock" the very first time they met (John 1:42)?

 

[FredVB]

"Sacred Tradition", which Christ never spoke of

So what?

The apostles did:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2Thess 2:15)

Jesus Christ never said anything praising traditions, traditions he mentioned were those being given weight of scriptures and put in that place, which he was faulting. The traditions believers were taught from the apostles were those put in the books now in new testament scriptures, including how the first church, that in Jerusalem, was, which I don't see churches now being like. That was tradition from the apostles, which you don't have being observed. The traditions you have are something else, even if you claim those are from apostles.

If James was the leader of the Church, why did Jesus give the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to PETER, not James? (Matt 16:19)

If James was the leader of the Church, why is he mentioned only 7 times in Acts, compared to Peter, who is mentioned 70 times?

If James is the brother of Jesus and therefore the son of Mary, why did Jesus entrust JOHN to look after Mary, the mother of Jesus?
"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home." (John 19: 25-27)

"If James..." ? Peter had to go to Jerusalem and in the matter of a very important dispute make an appeal.

And the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them, "Men and brothers, you know how a good while ago God made a choice among us, that by my mouth the gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." Acts of the Apostles 15:6-7

...Then all of them kept silence and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the gentiles by them. And after they held their peace, James answered saying, "Men and brothers, hearken to me..."

James is the one who concluded the council in Jerusalem with an epistle that was to be brought to the gentiles out from Jerusalem and Judea where Barnabas and Paul had gone, now with others named to oversee that. It was not the apostle James brother of John, he had been killed off as mentioned in Acts of the Apostles 12. James was known to history as the leader of the early church in Jerusalem, and he wrote the Epistle of James known to us.

Why did Jesus give Simon the name "rock" the very first time they met (John 1:42)?

This has already been discussed. Jesus named Simon the name Peter, meaning a rock. He was a very important figure in early Christianity and the church, after all. But nothing shows that is the same rock that Jesus said the church would be built on. The church is not built on a man.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Petros is "pebble" , Petra is "foundation stone".

The above statement is incorrect.

Petros means rock, petra is the feminine form of Petros and means rock. And John 1.42 uses Cephas which is Aramaic and Cephas means rock.

If the author of the quote is relying on Strong's or some other 19th-century source then have a look at a more recent grammar and lexicon.

Additionally, if Petros and Petra are such different words in Greek that upon their alleged difference in meaning hangs the validity of the papacy, then why did neither Martin Luther nor the Greek Orthodox notice of this alleged difference in their disputes with the popes?

• Matthew 16:18 And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. (GNB)
• Matthew 16:18 So I will call you Peter, which means "a rock." On this rock I will build my church, and death itself will not have any power over it. (CEV)
• Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (ESV)
• Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (DRB)
• Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (KJV)

Not one of these translations says "You are Pebble".

 

[Buzzard3]

If James..." ? Peter had to go to Jerusalem and in the matter of a very important dispute make an appeal.

You didn't answer my question, I'll try again ...
If James was the leader of the Church, why is he mentioned only 7 times in Acts, compared to Peter, who is mentioned 70 times?

Btw, after Peter left Jerusalem, James was appointed as the leader (bishop) of the Church in Jerusalem only ... that doesn't mean James was the leader of the universal Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

that Peter is the same rock being your own interpretation. Others are not obliged to accept that.

Matt 16:18 says "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Tell me, why did Jesus begin that sentence by addressing Peter, if nothing in the remainder of that sentence applies to Peter?

If Peter is not "this rock", Matt 16:18 makes no grammatical sense.

 

[Buzzard3]

The traditions believers were taught from the apostles were those put in the books now in new testament scriptures

You don't know that ALL the traditions taught by the apostles are recorded in the NT. That is a baseless assumption on your part.


In John 16:12-13, Jesus says,
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth."
This passage implies that, in the fullness of time, the Holy Spirit would reveal additional things to the Church that Jesus did not necessarily teach and things that are not necessarily recorded in the Scriptures. This is why 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth", not the Scriptures.

Jesus named Simon the name Peter, meaning a rock. He was a very important figure in early Christianity and the church, after all. But nothing shows that is the same rock that Jesus said the church would be built on. The church is not built on a man.

Jesus could build his Church on a man because he bestowed on a man - Peter - a power that belongs only to God - "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

 

[BobRyan]

The above statement is incorrect.

Petros means rock, petra is the feminine form of Petros and means rock. And John 1.42 uses Cephas which is Aramaic and Cephas means rock.

"no other bedrock/foundation (Petra) can anyone lay other than that which was laid - Jesus Christ"


1Cor 3
11 For no man can lay a foundation (PETRA) other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matt 7: 24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (PETRA)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"no other bedrock/foundation (Petra) can anyone lay other than that which was laid - Jesus Christ"


1Cor 3
11 For no man can lay a foundation (PETRA) other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

"Petra" is not used in 1 Corinthians 3:11. "θεμέλιον" is the word translated as "foundation"

 

[Buzzard3]

"no other bedrock/foundation (Petra) can anyone lay other than that which was laid - Jesus Christ"


1Cor 3
11 For no man can lay a foundation (PETRA) other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Matt 7: 24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts on them, will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (PETRA)

...and it just so happened that Jesus - the rock - gave Simon the name "rock" the very first time they met. Funny, that.

Then later, Jesus says he will give Peter - the rock - the divine power of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

You don't have to be Einstein to join the dots - Jesus chose Peter to be his representative on earth; the man through whom Jesus would supernaturally led and guide the Church.

 

[BobRyan]

...and it just so happened that Jesus - the rock - gave Simon the name "rock" the very first time they met. Funny, that.

Then later, Jesus says he will give Peter - the rock - the divine power of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19). .

Matt 16 he says to Peter "get thee behind me Satan".

In Matt 7 we see "bedrock" as the foundation for a house built... in Matt 16 we see the contrast between bedrock "Petra" and "pebble" "petros" where the pebble fails in that very same chapter as he attempts to instruct Christ that Christ is wrong... and later as he then denies Christ 3 times at His trial.

 

[BobRyan]

You didn't answer my question, I'll try again ...
If James was the leader of the Church, why is he mentioned only 7 times in Acts, compared to Peter, who is mentioned 70 times?

Btw, after Peter left Jerusalem, James was appointed as the leader (bishop) of the Church in Jerusalem only ... that doesn't mean James was the leader of the universal Church.

Paul says in Gal 2:11-14 that Peter was intimidated by the mere presence "men who came from James" so much so that he changed to a rather unchristian attitude toward gentile Christians.

Luke says in Acts 15 - after all the apostles had given their opinion - James renders the final decision saying

19 "Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has those who preach him in every city, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 and they sent this letter with them:​

Ga 2:9 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.

1. Notice that it is James who is first mentioned in that list of apostles to the Jews
2. Notice that just as they were sent to the Jews -- so Paul and Barnabas sent to gentiles.

 

[BobRyan]

"Petra" is not used in 1 Corinthians 3:11. "θεμέλιον" is the word translated as "foundation"

True - that was my mistake - it is 1 Cor 10:4 "4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual Rock (Petra) which followed them; and the Rock (Petra) was Christ."

He is the one and only foundation: 1 Cor 3: 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

True - that was my mistake - it is 1 Cor 10:4 "4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual Rock (Petra) which followed them; and the Rock (Petra) was Christ."

So what is it that you think 1 Corinthians 10:4 teaches about the pope?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

True - that was my mistake

Your post was mistaken about "petra" in 1 Corinthians 3:11. Good of you to acknowledge it. Is there a reason one ought to accept your perspective on Matthew 16:18?

 

[BobRyan]

"Petra" is not used in 1 Corinthians 3:11. "θεμέλιον" is the word translated as "foundation"

True - that was my mistake - it is 1 Cor 10:4 "4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual Rock (Petra) which followed them; and the Rock (Petra) was Christ."

He is the one and only foundation: 1 Cor 3: 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Your post was mistaken about "petra" in 1 Corinthians 3:11. Good of you to acknowledge it. Is there a reason one ought to accept your perspective on Matthew 16:18?

Well we have the chapter Matthew 16 for starters.

21 From that time Jesus began to point out to His disciples that it was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem and to suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and to be killed, and to be raised up on the third day. 22 And yet Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You!” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but men’s.”