Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Buzzard3]

The language with the naming of Peter in John mirrors that in Matthew and I think it's reasonable given the history of other accounts that they may describe an over-lapping event that may have all occurred but perhaps not as linear. Each isolated there isn't a problem, but the conflict comes when they are studied together.

What "conflict comes when they are studied together"?

At the very least it needs to be considered and studied in greater depth.

Good luck with that.

 

[Buzzard3]

I wouldn’t say it’s obvious it’s actually far from being obvious which is why it’s such a debated topic. I do find it interesting that you would say that the creation accounts in Genesis are obviously not meant to be taken literally but the bread of life discourse in John 6 is meant to be taken literally. I’m assuming that’s your position on John 6 since it is a popular belief amongst RCC believers.

If the Genesis creation accounts are read literally, several problems arise. For starters, there are two conflicting creation accounts. Another problem is reconciling six literal days of creation with indisputable scientific facts (no, I am not a Darwinist).
With the Gospels, on the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the history described therein is not literal history.
I can't see how John 6 is relevant viz-a-viz the historical nature of the Gospels.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If the Genesis creation accounts are read literally, several problems arise. For starters, there are two conflicting creation accounts. Another problem is reconciling six literal days of creation with indisputable scientific facts (no, I am not a Darwinist).
With the Gospels, on the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the history described therein is not literal history.
I can't see how John 6 is relevant viz-a-viz the historical nature of the Gospels.

I’m assuming your referring to the evidence that the earth appears to be older than the scriptures say it is? Perhaps that’s because God didn’t create everything in a brand new state. Do you think He created Adam as a newborn infant laying on the ground or do you think He created Adam as an adult able to thrive and survive? Perhaps He created the trees and animals in the same way as well as the rocks and soil in order to have a working ecosystem.

 

[Buzzard3]

It’s an indication that Peter will establish the church, but Peter wasn’t the only one planting churches. Paul planted more churches than Peter did.

Jesus gave the "keys" to Peter only, which gave him supreme authority over the entire Church. This supreme authority had nothing to do with the number of churches Peter himself planted ... if he planted zero churches, his authority would have remained supreme.

In any case it appears your intention is to use this to support the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm a Roman Catholic so I support the Roman Catholic Church.

Btw, some Protestants acknowledge that Peter was the first leader of the Church - eg, BibleStudyTools.com says

"Saint Peter was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ and the first leader of the early Church"
(from "Peter in the Bible").

 

[DamianWarS]

What "conflict comes when they are studied together"?

Good luck with that.

the timeline and the timeline is under suspicion because John arranges accounts in a different order.

 

[Buzzard3]

I’m assuming your referring to the evidence that the earth appears to be older than the scriptures say it is? Perhaps that’s because God didn’t create everything in a brand new state. Do you think He created Adam as a newborn infant laying on the ground or do you think He created Adam as an adult able to thrive and survive? Perhaps He created the trees and animals in the same way as well as the rocks and soil in order to have a working ecosystem.

This is getting too far off-topic. If you want to start a thread re the above I would gladly contribute something to the discussion.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jesus gave the "keys" to Peter only, which gave him supreme authority over the entire Church. This supreme authority had nothing to do with the number of churches Peter himself planted ... if he planted zero churches, his authority would have remained supreme.

I'm a Roman Catholic so I support the Roman Catholic Church.

Btw, some Protestants acknowledge that Peter was the first leader of the Church - eg, BibleStudyTools.com says

"Saint Peter was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ and the first leader of the early Church"
(from "Peter in the Bible").

In Acts 19 Peter didn’t exercise any sort of “supreme authority”. It was James who made the final ruling. The decision was made by ecumenical council.

 

[Buzzard3]

the timeline and the timeline is under suspicion because John arranges accounts in a different order.

Sorry, that doesn't seem to answer my question. You alluded to a "conflict" between John 1:40-42 and Matt 16:13-20. What "conflict" are you referring to?

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is getting too far off-topic. If you want to start a thread re the above I would gladly contribute something to the discussion.

No your right brother I just wanted to present the perspective as a possible explanation.

 

[DamianWarS]

Sorry, that doesn't seem to answer my question. You alluded to a "conflict" between John 1:40-42 and Matt 16:13-20. What "conflict" are you referring to?

the conflict (or perhaps a better word is "tension") is the timeline and the timeline is under suspicion because of the history of how events are arranged in John.

 

[Buzzard3]

In Acts 19 Peter didn’t exercise any sort of “supreme authority”. It was James who made the final ruling. The decision was made by ecumenical council.

In Acts 15, before Peter's speech there was much debate in the assembly; after Peter's speech the assembly "fell silent" (v.12) - in other words, Peter settled the debate. James then supported Peter's decision and proposed a letter be sent to the Gentile believers.

 

[Buzzard3]

the conflict (or perhaps a better word is "tension") is the timeline and the timeline is under suspicion because of the history of how events are arranged in John.

Would it be fair to say that the only person in the entire history of Christianity who thinks "the timeline is under suspicion" is you?

 

[BNR32FAN]

In Acts 15, before Peter's speech there was much debate in the assembly; after Peter's speech the assembly "fell silent" (v.12) - in other words, Peter settled the debate. James then supported Peter's decision and proposed a letter be sent to the Gentile believers.

They kept silent while they were listening to Paul and Barnabas speak. So the discussion wasn’t over based solely on what Peter said, Paul, Barnabas, and James all supported what Peter said after he spoke. In the end it was James who made the final ruling hence his words in verses 19 and 20

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:19-20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

James made the final ruling and decided the next course of action.

 

[Buzzard3]

In Acts 19 Peter didn’t exercise any sort of “supreme authority”. It was James who made the final ruling. The decision was made by ecumenical council.

You might find this article helpful:

“James Led the Council!”

 

[BNR32FAN]

You might find this article helpful:

“James Led the Council!”

I don’t do commentaries I can probably find a few commentaries supporting the protestant side of the argument as well so it doesn’t really prove anything. What I see in the scriptures is that Peter was no more infallible nor in charge than any of the other apostles. The church always decided controversial matters thru synods and ecumenical council not one supreme ruler.

 

[Buzzard3]

They kept silent while they were listening to Paul and Barnabas speak. So the discussion wasn’t over based solely on what Peter said, Paul, Barnabas, and James all supported what Peter said after he spoke. In the end it was James who made the final ruling hence his words in verses 19 and 20

“Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:19-20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

James made the final ruling and decided the next course of action.

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) gathered to address this problem:
"some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.""

Notice that when Barnabus and Paul spoke, and then James, neither of them said a word about circumcision or the law of Moses. That's because Peter had already settled that issue with his speech, which put an end to the debate, which is why the assembly "fell silent" (v.12).

Barnabus and Paul talked about "how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles".
Then James added "that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood (v.20).

The subsequent letter sent from the Church to the Gentile believers included:
(a) Peter's decision regarding cirumcision and the law:
"Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment" (v.24)
and
(b) what James added:
"that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality" (v.29).

In other words, it was PETER - not James - who settled the issue that the Council had gathered for.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) gathered to address this problem:
"some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.""

Notice that when Barnabus and Paul spoke, and then James, neither of them said a word about circumcision or the law of Moses. That's because Peter had already settled that issue with his speech, which put an end to the debate, which is why the assembly "fell silent" (v.12).

Barnabus and Paul talked about "how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles".
Then James added "that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood (v.20).

The subsequent letter sent from the Church to the Gentile believers included:
(a) Peter's decision regarding cirumcision and the law:
"Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"--to whom we gave no such commandment" (v.24)
and
(b) what James added:
"that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality" (v.29).

In other words, it was PETER - not James - who settled the issue that the Council had gathered for.

That is a preposterous explanation. You think Peter spoke and that was the end of it? You think Paul, Barnabas, and James were all talking about different matters?

 

[DamianWarS]

Would it be fair to say that the only person in the entire history of Christianity who thinks "the timeline is under suspicion" is you?

Jesus cleansing the temple is at different times in John and the other Gospels. It's in plain sight. The timeline is different. So it is reasonable that other accounts are presented with a different timeline too which warrants looking at the nameing of Peter as the same event, at least when it comes to overlapping details.

 

[JM]

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 ... in fact it was the very first thing he ever said to him!

You don't know? Well, here's a hint: Read Matt 16:18

Please provide us with the official, from the chair of Peter understanding of this passage and I'll offer ours. Oh, that's right...Rome doesn't do that.

Troll thread...don't feed the Trolls.

 

[Buzzard3]

Please provide us with the official, from the chair of Peter understanding of this passage and I'll offer ours. Oh, that's right...Rome doesn't do that.

Troll thread...don't feed the Trolls.

What's there to understand? The text is unambiguous - John 1:42 records the very first words Jesus ever said to Peter: "You are Simon, son of Jonah. You will be called Cephas (which means "rock")."