Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[Buzzard3]

As soon as you're given a title that denotes a person as a leader instead of a servant you are encouraging that person to assume they are better than someone else.

Yes, they are better at being the leader!

Jesus was their leader ... did he assume he was "better" than the apostles?

Are you saying your church doesn't have a leader?

A leader of a community can also be a servant of that community. For example, the Prime Minister of Australia is officially classified as the nation's top "public servant". He serves the people by working hard to provide good leadership.

That's why Jesus would set the example of washing the feet of the apostles, so they would remember and know this.

Jesus washed the feet of the apostles ... does that mean he wasn't their leader?

And to answer your question, having twelve people with experience to guide the church is infinitely better than one supreme leader.

So you think there should be twelve Presidents of the USA instead of one?

The only leader we should have is Jesus, and Jesus delegated the responsibility of guiding the early church to twelve chosen people.

Jesus "the rock" Christ gave the same name to the man he delegated to lead the Church on earth - Simon "the rock" Peter. Did you notice that in John 1:42, Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock" the very first time they met?

That's why they are called ministers, preachers, or teachers. They aren't there to control or legislate or be empowered. The pastor serves his parish. A deacon or an elder serves the congregation.

In the early Church, the apostles legislated, controlled and were empowered by Jesus to lead the Church. Exhibit A: the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15).

By contrast a Pope makes rules and enforces them

So does God.

And before the 19th century would determine the legality of wars, the succession of rulers, and the punishment of sin. Where in the Bible was there a justification for the inquisitions, for burning people to death for heresy, for holy wars, etc. It seems to me that the only justifiable punishment a church can undertake is excommunication or removal from duties. The rest of it is totalitarian.

Off topic.

 

[Buzzard3]

Then how is it any different from any of the other apostles, or even the Christians that received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost?

For one thing, by giving "the "keys" to only one man, Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church.

 

[SuperCow]

Yes, they are better at being the leader!

Jesus was their leader ... did he assume he was "better" than the apostles?

He didn't have to. He was the perfect Messiah. No human could live up to that.

Are you saying your church doesn't have a leader?

Not one appointed for life and assumed to be the infallible spokesman of God.

A leader of a community can also be a servant of that community. For example, the Prime Minister of Australia is officially classified as the nation's top "public servant". He serves the people by working hard to provide good leadership.

Jesus washed the feet of the apostles ... does that mean he wasn't their leader?

Again Jesus had no sin. He is no longer human.

So you think there should be twelve Presidents of the USA instead of one?

I certainly wouldn't want a president to be elected for life, and his successor being a hand-picked successor.

Jesus "the rock" Christ gave the same name to the man he delegated to lead the Church on earth - Simon "the rock" Peter. Did you notice that in John 1:42, Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock" the very first time they met?

Yes, you've repeated that over and over. How could I miss it?

In the early Church, the apostles legislated, controlled and were empowered by Jesus to lead the Church. Exhibit A: the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15).

Exactly, a council.

So does God.

Off topic.

Not if you consider your pope to be the inerrant spokesman of God.

 

[Valletta]

Not if you consider your pope to be the inerrant spokesman of God.

Popes make errors, they are sinners like you and me.

 

[klutedavid]

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

Hope your not going to generate a doctrine on the basis of one verse?

This happens a lot in Christianity and I would avoid doing that.

 

[klutedavid]

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

Go ahead and build the one true church on the shoulders of just one man. This will not end well.

Peter had trouble understanding Paul's letters and deferred to Paul.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul accused Peter of falling from grace, in his letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Scripture tells us who was in charge in the Jewish church, who was the pope.

Galatians 2:9
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.

Someone blew it in the Roman church, so who got it wrong and when?

 

[chad kincham]

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

Here’s your inconvenient answer:

Jesus said in the Greek: thou art PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my congregation (ekklesia means congregation, not church).

Peter the Petros is not the Petra rock that the congregation of Jesus is built upon.

Two different rocks are in that text.

 

[Buzzard3]

That is a preposterous explanation. You think Peter spoke and that was the end of it?

Well, that is what the text suggests - there was much debate on the matter before Peter rose to speak ... after Peter spoke there is no mention of any further debate - in fact, the text says the assembly "fell silent". That implies that the matter (of whether or not the Gentiles should follow the law of Moses) was settled ... by Peter.

You think Paul, Barnabas, and James were all talking about different matters?

What did Paul and Barnabus say regarding whether or not Gentile Christians should follow the law of Moses? Nothing.

Neither did James really - he merely agreed with Peter, who said the law of Moses should not be imposed on Gentile Christians ("10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?").

Another consideration is that the troublemakers were Jewish believers under the local authority of James, so after Peter's ruling, it was up to James - as Bishop of said troublemakers - to remedy the situation.
Hence, James says, "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God" (v.19).
When James says "we" he is perhaps referring to his own disciples - the Jews who were troubling the Gentiles by telling them they must follow the law of Moses. So it's entirely possible that James was speaking as a local Bishop, not as the leader of the Church.

Another point worth considering is that since the Council was held in the Jerusalem, James was the "host" Bishop, so it was his (ceremonial) role to deliver the final and overall judgement of the Council.

 

[Buzzard3]

Here’s your inconvenient answer:

Jesus said in the Greek: thou art PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my congregation (ekklesia means congregation, not church).

Peter the Petros is not the Petra rock that the congregation of Jesus is built upon.

Two different rocks are in that text.

Not so fast. "Petros" is masculine; "Petra" is feminine. So "Peter" - a MAN - can only be translated (in the Greek) as the MASCULINE "Petros".
To translate "Peter" as the feminine "Petra" would be as grammatically incorrect as calling a man, "Madam".

If you read a French Bible, the words for "Peter" and "rock" in Matt 16:18 are exactly the same.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the Aramaic name Jesus gave Simon in John 1:42 is "kepha", which simply means "rock" - not "little rock" or "pebble", but simply "rock".

 

[SuperCow]

Popes make errors, they are sinners like you and me.

Of course, but that is not what many of your fellow Catholics believe, at least for a Pope currently holding the office.

This is apparently a statement from the first Vatican council in 1870. (Not vetted by me. I get this from The Infallibility of the Pope — Basic Facts About an Essential Dogma - Catholicism.org, which you can correct me if it is not a bonafide Catholic source):

"Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith … we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for deigning doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."

But if the popes, and by inference papal doctrine is fallible as you say, then you would not expect papal succession to have much different results than the monarchy in Israel. If the Bible tells me anything, it is that leaving his chosen nation in the hands of a single succession of kings as life appointments eventually ends in disaster.

 

[Buzzard3]

Peter had trouble understanding Paul's letters and deferred to Paul.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

There is nothing in that verse that supports your claim that "Peter had trouble understanding Paul's letters and deferred to Paul".
Peter says Paul's letters can be misunderstood/distorted by "the untaught and unstable". There is not a word there about Peter HIMSELF misunderstanding Paul's letters.

Paul accused Peter of falling from grace, in his letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Peter made the mistake on that occassion of not practising what he preached, and for that Paul called him out and corrected him. That doesn't prove Peter was not the leader of the Church.
If the President of the US makes a mistake and is corrected by one of his senior staff, does that mean the President is not in fact the President?

Scripture tells us who was in charge in the Jewish church, who was the pope.

Galatians 2:9
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.

That verse simply implies that James, Peter and John were "pillars" of the Church. It doesn't imply Peter was not the leader.
ALL the apostles were "pillars" of the Church, but Jesus gave the "keys" to PETER ONLY (Matt 16:19), which means Jesus chose PETER to be the leader of the Church.

Someone blew it in the Roman church, so who got it wrong and when?

Well, it seems to me that it was you who blew it and got it wrong, by misinterpreting your Bible.

 

[SuperCow]

Not so fast. "Petros" is masculine; "Petra" is feminine. So "Peter" - a MAN - can only be translated (in the Greek) as the MASCULINE "Petros".
To translate "Peter" as the feminine "Petra" would be as grammatically incorrect as calling a man, "Madam".

Hmmm, that seems pretty normal these days.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, that is what the text suggests - there was much debate on the matter before Peter rose to speak ... after Peter spoke there is no mention of any further debate - in fact, the text says the assembly "fell silent". That implies that the matter (of whether or not the Gentiles should follow the law of Moses) was settled ... by Peter.

What did Paul and Barnabus say regarding whether or not Gentile Christians should follow the law of Moses? Nothing.

Neither did James really - he merely agreed with Peter, who said the law of Moses should not be imposed on Gentile Christians ("10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?").

Another consideration is that the troublemakers were Jewish believers under the local authority of James, so after Peter's ruling, it was up to James - as Bishop of said troublemakers - to remedy the situation.
Hence, James says, "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God" (v.19).
When James says "we" he is perhaps referring to his own disciples - the Jews who were troubling the Gentiles by telling them they must follow the law of Moses. So it's entirely possible that James was speaking as a local Bishop, not as the leader of the Church.

Another point worth considering is that since the Council was held in the Jerusalem, James was the "host" Bishop, so it was his (ceremonial) role to deliver the final and overall judgement of the Council.

The whole point of Paul and Barnabas talking about the signs & wonders God had been doing thru the Gentiles was to indicate that they were blessed by Him even despite not having been circumcised, that they had found favor with Him. This was presented as evidence supporting the idea that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Then James supported Peter’s, Paul’s and Barnabas’ position concerning the idea that circumcision was not necessary. Paul and Barnabas had already rejected the idea that circumcision was necessary for Gentiles in verse 2 and notice the brethren decided that they should go speak with the apostles and elders, not Peter. They didn’t go see the pope to resolve the matter they held the first ecumenical council to decide what course of action to take.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Go ahead and build the one true church on the shoulders of just one man. This will not end well.

Peter had trouble understanding Paul's letters and deferred to Paul.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Paul accused Peter of falling from grace, in his letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Scripture tells us who was in charge in the Jewish church, who was the pope.

Galatians 2:9
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.

Someone blew it in the Roman church, so who got it wrong and when?

Peter had not fallen from grace he stood with fault or worthy of blame.

Here’s the definition of the Greek word that was used.

1. to find fault with, blame
2. to accuse, condemn

 

[Buzzard3]

Not one appointed for life and assumed to be the infallible spokesman of God

This seems irrelevant to your initial point, which was this:
"As soon as you're given a title that denotes a person as a leader instead of a servant you are encouraging that person to assume they are better than someone else."

So you appear to have moved the goal posts.
Regardess, for you to suggest that no church should have a leader strikes me as completely absurd ... not to mention, contrary to the NT.

I certainly wouldn't want a president to be elected for life, and his successor being a hand-picked successor

I asked you if you think there should be twelve Presidents of the USA instead of one, so your answer looks like another case of shifting the goal posts.
There is no good reason to claim that having a single leader of an organisation is necessarily a bad thing.

As for you not wanting a President for life ... neither would I, but President and Pope are two very different things.
As Peter's successor, the Pope holds "the keys", which means he is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit - whether he rules for one year or fifty years.

Btw, a Pope's successor is not "hand-picked" by the out-going Pope. The successor is elected by a college of Cardinals, who number in the hundreds.

Exactly, a council.

If it was ok for the apostles to legislate, control and be empowered to lead the Church, why do you claim Church leaders today shouldn't do the same thing?

Not if you consider your pope to be the inerrant spokesman of God

Sounds suspiciously like you're yet another Protestant who doesn't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

 

[Buzzard3]

Paul accused Peter of falling from grace, in his letter to the Galatians.

I almost missed this one. Where in Galatians does it say that "Paul accused Peter of falling from grace"?

 

[Buzzard3]

Hmmm, that seems pretty normal these days.

Good one!

 

[SuperCow]

This seems irrelevant to your initial point, which was this:
"As soon as you're given a title that denotes a person as a leader instead of a servant you are encouraging that person to assume they are better than someone else."

So you appear to have moved the goal posts.
Regardess, for you to suggest that no church should have a leader strikes me as completely absurd ... not to mention, contrary to the NT.

Not sure where you thought my metaphoric goal posts started. My position from the beginning was that God is not providing revelations, prophecy, or inspired direct guidance to a single person. (In Catholic terms, that is the pope.) The history of the papal office shows there were many righteous well meaning people in its office, but also several truly horrific ones. How each of the 266 popes (if you include Peter and St. Linus) faired in their acts of leading the church I have not researched sufficiently to comment.

The church is a place where people learn about God. The pastor's goal is to be a teacher. Because he is often the most experienced in the congregation he is looked upon as an authority on interpreting scripture. Through logistical necessity he often must act as a manager of the church operations, finances, missionary plans, and fellowship activities. In that sense he is a leader. But people support the church through their donations and volunteer work. In that sense he has a job, and they are his employer. He teaches, and manages the upkeep of the church, and parishioners support him. If they don't show up for lessons, he loses his job.

Since he is also a servant of God, the people expect him to be faithful to the Bible. If he is not, then the people can and should go elsewhere. That doesn't mean changing their faith, because that should never change. (Though then you can digress and ask which particular faith of the hundreds out there.)

I asked you if you think there should be twelve Presidents of the USA instead of one, so your answer looks like another case of shifting the goal posts.
There is no good reason to claim that having a single leader of an organisation is necessarily a bad thing.

As for you not wanting a President for life ... neither would I, but President and Pope are two very different things.
As Peter's successor, the Pope holds "the keys", which means he is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit - whether he rules for one year or fifty years.

Btw, a Pope's successor is not "hand-picked" by the out-going Pope. The successor is elected by a college of Cardinals, who number in the hundreds.

If it was ok for the apostles to legislate, control and be empowered to lead the Church, why do you claim Church leaders today shouldn't do the same thing?

Sounds suspiciously like you're yet another Protestant who doesn't understand the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

There's no reason historically to believe that all of the 266 popes were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Valletta]

Of course, but that is not what many of your fellow Catholics believe, at least for a Pope currently holding the office.

This is apparently a statement from the first Vatican council in 1870. (Not vetted by me. I get this from The Infallibility of the Pope — Basic Facts About an Essential Dogma - Catholicism.org, which you can correct me if it is not a bonafide Catholic source):

"Faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith … we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for deigning doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiffs are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."

But if the popes, and by inference papal doctrine is fallible as you say, then you would not expect papal succession to have much different results than the monarchy in Israel. If the Bible tells me anything, it is that leaving his chosen nation in the hands of a single succession of kings as life appointments eventually ends in disaster.

Using your logic, if by inference doctrine is fallible then by inference the Bible must be fallible.

 

[chad kincham]

Not so fast. "Petros" is masculine; "Petra" is feminine. So "Peter" - a MAN - can only be translated (in the Greek) as the MASCULINE "Petros".
To translate "Peter" as the feminine "Petra" would be as grammatically incorrect as calling a man, "Madam".

If you read a French Bible, the words for "Peter" and "rock" in Matt 16:18 are exactly the same.

Furthermore, as I understand it, the Aramaic name Jesus gave Simon in John 1:42 is "kepha", which simply means "rock" - not "little rock" or "pebble", but simply "rock".

And you’ve unwittingly proved my point.

In the original language the New Testament was written in, there are two separate rocks mentioned by Jesus, who said ‘thou art Petros, masculine tense, and upon this PETRA, feminine tense - (the church is called the BRIDE, not the groom) - I will build my congregation.

In French or English or any language bible, when you look at the original koine Greek the New Testament was written in, Peter the pebble is not the bedrock that the church is built on.

Scripture says Jesus is the bedrock the church is built on.

Scripture clearly says:

Eph 2:19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,

Eph 2:20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;

Apostles, plural, and prophets, plural - not singular, and not built on just one apostle, singular.

Jesus is the Chief cornerstone, not Peter.

The household of God, the church, is not built on Peter.