Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

Buzzard3 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

What's your point ... ?

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.

Click to expand...

boughtwithaprice said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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 said:

"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?

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

"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?

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

"Sacred Tradition", which Christ never spoke of

Click to expand...

Buzzard3 said:

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)

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

"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)?

Click to expand...

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.

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

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".

Xeno.of.athens said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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)

BobRyan said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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

Buzzard3 said:

...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). .

Click to expand...

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.

Buzzard3 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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


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.

Xeno.of.athens said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

BobRyan said:

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."

Click to expand...

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

BobRyan said:

True - that was my mistake

Click to expand...

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?

Xeno.of.athens said:

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

Click to expand...

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 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.”