Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Davy]

Oh dear. Seriously?
You do realise Cyprian was in Africa, don't you?

Pretty weak if that's all you can come back with.

 

[Davy]

Brethren in Christ Jesus:
Of course those of the Catholic Church, and their associated denominations, are going to disagree with the papal history link below I posted:

Apostate church organization: 250-451AD: The rise of the diocesan bishops, then the 3 metropolitans and finally the 5 patriarchs.

For a Protestant (of which I am, and my ancestors from 15th century France that came to the Americas also were), it's difficult to find any real information online about the actual history of the papal office, simply because the Catholic Church has captured the majority of top spots about the subject in search engines. And if the Catholic Church are the ones writing the papal history... you know you are going to get their biased views about their own history.

The fact of the matter is that the idea of a "bishop of bishops" existed well before 6th century A.D., before there was an official papal office with a Pope. And that idea came into existence as certain bishops began to be overseers of multiple congregations in an area instead of just one Church. This is how the political office of a "bishop of bishops" came into being.

 

[Davy]

Yep, it's so silly Jesus gave Peter alone the "keys of the kingdom alone" (Matt 16:19). Do you understand the significance of that fact? Do you understand that only GOD can possibly hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Yet Jesus gave them to Peter, a mere man.

And yet you still do not understand what Lord Jesus meant by that.

Didn't Lord Jesus ordained Apostle Paul per Acts 9 to go preach The Gospel to the Gentiles, and to kings, and to the children of Israel?

If only Apostle Peter had the 'keys', then how is it that Apostle Paul was ordained to do that, and to be overseer of the Churches in Asia Minor? Was Apostle Peter constantly sending Apostle Paul letters to do preach this, don't preach that? Acts 15 is the only place I can find in God's Word where Peter was involved in telling Paul what laws to cover to the Gentiles. And even in Galatians, Apostle Paul REBUKES Apostle Peter, because Peter sat and ate with Gentiles until his Jewish brethren from Jerusalem came for a visit, and he separated himself. How was it that Apostle Paul had the POWER to rebuke Apostle Peter?

No, it's obvious what the traditions of men under the Catholic system has done with their fabrication of the office of a pope, trying to link it with Apostle Peter in supreme authority! It's all a 'power play', and nothing more.

Apostate church organization: 250-451AD: The rise of the diocesan bishops, then the 3 metropolitans and finally the 5 patriarchs.

 

[BobRyan]

Nothing. It teaches us that the "Rock" (PETRA) is Christ and we find earlier in that same book that "NO OTHER foundation can anyone lay other than CHRIST"

Just as in Matt 7 the ROCK (Petra) that man is to build on - is the WORD of Christ.

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

That is a reasonable comment on the rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4 but the verse says nothing about foundations.

I see the "foundation" topic in 1 Cor 3:10-11

So then "the ROCK" (Petra) is Christ in 1 Cor 10
And Christ is the one and only foundation in 1 Cor 3

 

[BobRyan]

In Koine Greek, the word for "small rock" or "pebble" is lithos, not petros.

Even Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit this in their publications.

LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry"

Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.

Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone

 

[prodromos]

Pretty weak if that's all you can come back with.

It really isn't worth my time to pick apart all the false claims in your linked article.

 

[prodromos]

Brethren in Christ Jesus:
Of course those of the Catholic Church, and their associated denominations, are going to disagree with the papal history link below I posted:

Apostate church organization: 250-451AD: The rise of the diocesan bishops, then the 3 metropolitans and finally the 5 patriarchs.

I am not a Catholic and I consider the Papacy and the underlying theology to be heretical, but trash is trash and your linked article is trash.

For a Protestant (of which I am, and my ancestors from 15th century France that came to the Americas also were), it's difficult to find any real information online about the actual history of the papal office, simply because the Catholic Church has captured the majority of top spots about the subject in search engines. And if the Catholic Church are the ones writing the papal history... you know you are going to get their biased views about their own history.

Go to a good library and read history written by people who actually do proper research. Read primary source documents such as the decisions of Church councils and letters written between bishops. There is plenty of material available

The fact of the matter is that the idea of a "bishop of bishops" existed well before 6th century A.D., before there was an official papal office with a Pope. And that idea came into existence as certain bishops began to be overseers of multiple congregations in an area instead of just one Church. This is how the political office of a "bishop of bishops" came into being.

Nope. Metropolitans did not have any authority over regional bishops. The only authority over a bishop was a synod of his peers and that authority extended over the Metropolitan as well. Not too long ago, the former Patriarch of Jerusalem was removed by a synod of bishops in the Jerusalem Patriarchate due to his corrupt dealings with the Jewish state.

 

[ViaCrucis]

LITHOS in classical Greek is the common prose word for "a stone" (see the quote from Liddle and Scott's Lexicon, above) and PETROS is more common in poetry"

Petros, a stone, a smaller movable stone (Heracletes uses it in the phrase "leave no stone unturned.") So, a "PETROS" is a stone which can by turned over, hence, a movable stone.

Petra, a large massive rock, a large boulder, a foundation stone

In Aramaic it's Kepha (aka "Cephas"). The grammatical distinction, in Greek, simply boils down to the fact that petra is grammatically feminine, while petros is grammatically masculine. Calling Simon bar Jonah "Petra" would be like calling you Roberta instead of Bob. But, again, in Aramaic the name is Kepha, and there is no such small stone big stone distinction there.

Calling Simon bar Jonah Kepha/Petros points to Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ.

While I agree that Simon bar Jonah wasn't called Peter for the reasons Rome claims, this petra/petros argument fundamentally fails. The consensus of the ancient fathers was that the rock is Peter's confession of Christ--that's the rock upon which the Church is built; and so Simon was called "Rock" on account of his confession of faith, and to him (and to the whole Church) are given the Keys of the Kingdom. Peter, here, represents the whole, what Christ says to Peter is not for Peter alone, but for all the Apostles, and for the whole Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It's difficult to find any real information online about the actual history of the papal office, simply because the Catholic Church has captured the majority of top spots about the subject in search engines. And if the Catholic Church are the ones writing the papal history... you know you are going to get their biased views about their own history.

There is a lot of truth in this section of your post. A lot of history especially about the reformation and inquisitions and persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church are or have been re-written and from a Catholic perspective that dominates the search engines. Protestantism because of this and time because many people have forgotten is now dying because of the spread of false information flowing through the internet and loss of truthful historical records.

Take Care

 

[BobRyan]

While I agree that Simon bar Jonah wasn't called Peter for the reasons Rome claims, this petra/petros argument fundamentally fails.

that is why I include the 1 Cor 3 and 1 Cor 10 details as well as the Matt 16 detail of Christ addressing Peter as "Satan".

1 Cor 3:

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.​

I see the "foundation" topic in 1 Cor 3:10-11

So then "the ROCK" (Petra) is Christ in 1 Cor 10
And Christ is the one and only foundation in 1 Cor 3

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Calling Simon bar Jonah Kepha/Petros points to Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. While I agree that Simon bar Jonah wasn't called Peter for the reasons Rome claims, this petra/petros argument fundamentally fails.

I understand what your saying here but I think if your evaluating the word meanings in isolation without reviewing the Greek grammar or anything else you may have a point here but the argument does not fail at all when considering everything together..

(1.) scripture contexts of Christs confession of Jesus as the Messiah;
(2.) Greek Word meanings;
(3.) application of these word meanings to Greek grammar (see post # 364)
(4.) further scripture topical analysis to who is the foundation rock being referred to in both the old and new testament scriptures that support Jesus as the true Rock of ages. (see post # 366 linked).​

Even if you consider Cephas (Simon) also bears another name, Κηφᾶς which is the Greek transcription some believe of the Aramaic word [Kepha] which is found in John 1:42 [42], And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone (Πέτρος; petros meaning is a piece of rock or stone). The scripture interpretation here of Cephas is also being applied the same meaning as petros or piece of rock or stone petros not petra (foundation rock).

The consensus of the ancient fathers was that the rock is Peter's confession of Christ--that's the rock upon which the Church is built; and so Simon was called "Rock" on account of his confession of faith, and to him (and to the whole Church) are given the Keys of the Kingdom. Peter, here, represents the whole, what Christ says to Peter is not for Peter alone, but for all the Apostles, and for the whole Church. -CryptoLutheran

Agreed. The Rock is Christ and Peters confession of Christ as the true foundation Rock of ages which is supported all through the scriptures.

Take Care.

 

[prodromos]

There is a lot of truth in this section. A lot of history especially about the reformation and inquisitions and persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church are being re-written and I agree that biased views of the Roman Catholic Church literature now dominates the search engines. Protestantism because of this is now dying because of the spread of false information flowing through the internet and loss of truthful historical records.

Take Care

What complete nonsense.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

What complete nonsense.

Your opinion is noted. The facts remain that bias Catholic interpretations of history dominate the search engines.

 

[prodromos]

Your opinion is noted. The facts remain that bias Catholic interpretations of history dominate the search engines.

If the Internet is your sole source for information then you deserve what you get. That is not remotely good scholarship.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I see the "foundation" topic in 1 Cor 3:10-11

It's an interesting verse with one foundation that Saint Paul laid, perhaps in Corinth and perhaps meaning the foundation of a community of believers in that city. And another foundation that is laid by God which foundation is Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:9c-15 You are also God's building. 10 Using the gift that God gave me, I did the work of an expert builder and laid the foundation, and someone else is building on it. But each one must be careful how he builds. 11 For God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and no other foundation can be laid. 12 Some will use gold or silver or precious stones in building on the foundation; others will use wood or grass or straw. 13 And the quality of each person's work will be seen when the Day of Christ exposes it. For on that Day fire will reveal everyone's work; the fire will test it and show its real quality. 14 If what was built on the foundation survives the fire, the builder will receive a reward. 15 But if anyone's work is burnt up, then he will lose it; but he himself will be saved, as if he had escaped through the fire.​

The foundation that Saint Paul laid is, of course, Jesus Christ himself, not as a foundation already laid in Corinth but as the foundation laid by God. There is a mystery here. The mystery is revealed in Saint Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. It is that the work that Saint Paul did was not his work as if he were capable of laying the one foundation which is Jesus Christ himself but rather that as a co-worker with God Saint Paul laid the foundation in Corinth in communion with Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ himself operated through the Holy Spirit to cause some who heard the message of the gospel to be born from above by water and the Spirit.

So there is a two-fold laying of the foundation present in verses 10 and 11. The first mentioned laying work is the work that Saint Paul did in preaching the gospel and preparing those who believed the gospel to be a community of faith in that city, and then there is the second mentioned laying work which is by far the greater and it is that God himself laid the only foundation which is Jesus Christ. God's work is done in eternity and as such is always first in importance and primary in causing every good effect. Yet Saint Paul laid a foundation.

If one were to apply this passage to the words of Jesus Christ to Saint Peter in Matthew's gospel then one would be wise and well instructed in the gospel to apply it like this.

Matthew 16:15 “What about you?” he asked them. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 “Good for you, Simon son of John!” answered Jesus. “For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven. 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. 19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”​

This foundation is the one that God prepared, the one that God laid. It is a human foundation safe and sound as a rock but not made safe and sound by human power nor made to endure even the assault of death against it by human power because it is Jesus Christ who is doing this, Jesus Christ is building his church on this rock which is Saint Peter. And Saint Peter is the rock that God the Father prepared for the purpose to which Jesus Christ puts it. This is also a two-fold mystery in that Saint Peter is a human being yet he is the vessel that God filled with the truth revealed in the words, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” So, Saint Peter, the rock is the foundation truth that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus Christ is the foundation laid by God in Peter.

​

 

[BobRyan]

So, Saint Peter, the rock is the foundation truth that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus Christ is the foundation laid by God in Peter.

Since you already admit that Paul and all other disciples were preaching that Jesus is the Messiah -- then given this --

1 Cor 3:
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each person must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

I don't see a way to tweak that back over on itself into " Saint Peter, the rock is the foundation "

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't see a way to tweak that back over on itself into " Saint Peter, the rock is the foundation "

Yes, I can see that don't see a way. It may be because there were more words in the sentence than your reply is fixed upon.

"So, Saint Peter, the rock is the foundation truth that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus Christ is the foundation laid by God in Peter."

 

[LoveGodsWord]

If the Internet is your sole source for information then you deserve what you get. That is not remotely good scholarship.

Well here is the thing, if God is not our guide and teacher we cannot know the truth of Gods' Word no matter what we read. The internet is not my sole source of information which is why I know better then to rely on re-written sources of history in relation to the reformation and inquisitions and other Catholic references. I trust God's promises and God who I believe and trust is my guide and teacher in and outside of His Word. Where did I ever say to you that the internet is my sole source of information? If I have never said such things why pretend that I have? The majority of people however do rely on the internet for their sole source of information or misinformation depending on what they are reading.

Take Care.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Yes, I can see that don't see a way. It may be because there were more words in the sentence than your reply is fixed upon.

"So, Saint Peter, the rock is the foundation truth that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God. And Jesus Christ is the foundation laid by God in Peter."

The Greek words and Greek grammar including the scripture context and pretty much the whole bible do not agree with you here. Jesus is the foundation Rock according to the scriptures not Peter who is a piece of rock or stone or as some would term "a chip off the old block" so to speak (see post # 364, and post # 366 linked)

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I can see that don't see a way. It may be because there were more words in the sentence than your reply is fixed upon.

Rather it is because of these words "Since you already admit that Paul and all other disciples were preaching that Jesus is the Messiah" - so then the "One foundation" cannot be either one of them, it can be that one doctrinal truth as 1 Cor 3 points out - that Jesus is the Messiah and of course all of Jesus' life, death, resurrection and ministry in heaven as High Priest - but it can not be turned-back on itself to be one of those disciples merely because they all affirm that "Jesus was the Messiah."