"On this Rock I will build my church"

[Clear]

Metis :

I appreciate your attempts. The problem is relevance. You are starting to repeat the habit of offering posts which present irrelevant information.

The specific historical issue is that Peter was never a standing Bishop of the Roman Congregation and the apostle Peter never transferred his Apostolic Authority to Linus or any other Bishop of Rome.

Thus, the religious movement which sprang from the early Roman congregation never had the authority they claimed and so much wanted. Your posting is irrelevant to this historical point.


For examples :

1) You claim that the early congregations saw themselves as “one body”.
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome.

2) You then claim that “Peter's leadership role in this is quite clearly well covered”.
This dogmatic claim does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to bishop Linus.

3) You then claim that “what we see being created is what came to be called "apostolic succession".
This does not demonstrate that Peter actually gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome.

4) You then offered logic that “If there had been no … leader, then the church would have had quickly devolved into utter chaos”.
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome.

5) You then explained that “ a head needed to be recognized and followed”
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome

6) You then pointed out “..look how many denominations there are, each telling the other that they have the truth.”
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome

Your post is full of points that have no relevance to the historical problem. Historically, the Apostle Peter was never a standing Bishop of the roman congregation and the Apostle Peter never gave the obscure bishop of the roman congregation his authority.

Posting irrelevant information is not helpful to solving the historical dilemma for Roman Catholicism. This sort of habit of posting irrelevant points is becoming déjà vu to the last thread where you were unable to provide any data to show that Peter gave Linus or any other Roman bishop his apostolic Authority. While readers can clearly see the historical problem, simply posting irrelevant posts will not help the historical lack of evidence.

If you don't have any historical data that solves the historical problem, now would be a good time to admit it before we waste more time on irrelevance.

In any case, I hope your journey is good.

Clear
εινεφιακω

 

[metis]

Metis :

I appreciate your attempts. The problem is relevance. You are starting to repeat the habit of offering posts which present irrelevant information.

The specific historical issue is that Peter was never a standing Bishop of the Roman Congregation and the apostle Peter never transferred his Apostolic Authority to Linus or any other Bishop of Rome.

Thus, the religious movement which sprang from the early Roman congregation never had the authority they claimed and so much wanted. Your posting is irrelevant to this historical point.


For examples :

1) You claim that the early congregations saw themselves as “one body”.
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome.

2) You then claim that “Peter's leadership role in this is quite clearly well covered”.
This dogmatic claim does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to bishop Linus.

3) You then claim that “what we see being created is what came to be called "apostolic succession".
This does not demonstrate that Peter actually gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome.

4) You then offered logic that “If there had been no … leader, then the church would have had quickly devolved into utter chaos”.
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome.

5) You then explained that “ a head needed to be recognized and followed”
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome

6) You then pointed out “..look how many denominations there are, each telling the other that they have the truth.”
This does not demonstrate Peter gave apostolic authority to Bishop Linus of Rome

Your post is full of points that have no relevance to the historical problem. Historically, the Apostle Peter was never a standing Bishop of the roman congregation and the Apostle Peter never gave the obscure bishop of the roman congregation his authority.

Posting irrelevant information is not helpful to solving the historical dilemma for Roman Catholicism. This sort of habit of posting irrelevant points is becoming déjà vu to the last thread where you were unable to provide any data to show that Peter gave Linus or any other Roman bishop his apostolic Authority. While readers can clearly see the historical problem, simply posting irrelevant posts will not help the historical lack of evidence.

If you don't have any historical data that solves the historical problem, now would be a good time to admit it before we waste more time on irrelevance.

In any case, I hope your journey is good.

Clear
εινεφιακω

Again, you are seeing only what you want to see, which doesn't surprise me one iota since you're into the LDS propaganda mindset.

What you are missing is the relevant fact that the issue of the papacy, which I covered in my last post, was one of evolution, not revolution. Whether Peter saw himself as being a "bishop" of sorts is irrelevant, and so also is any transference of power from him. These are irrelevant points because it's really what evolved, especially due to the onslaught of "heresies" and the utter theological confusion, that's important.

So, I don't expect you to agree because of where you're obviously coming from, plus the obvious fact that you simply are ignoring what was involved in the 2nd century church that prompted this evolution. Whether you admit to it or not, the fact remains that the 2nd century church saw itself as "one body", informally at first led by Rome. And if there was any doubt about that, then one would be hard-put to explain Ignatius' letter to Clement, plus what occurred thereafter.

What I would suggest you do is to get into the various 2nd century letters, which I did about 30 years ago, and see for yourself. If you are not willing to take the time to do that, then you will continue to not understand the history behind this.

This is not some sort of "Catholic conspiracy" that I'm spouting, and the evidence is there for you to actually look up if you're willing to look at this objectively. Unless you are willing to go to that step, then there's no need to discuss this further.

This disagreement is nothing personal with me, so take care.

 

[metis]

BTW Clear, I posted some evidence to support where I'm coming from on this in my post 218, lest you forget.

 

[Clear]

Hi Metis

I cannot tell why you are posting nor what point you are trying to make. This thread has to do with the reference to "On this Rock I will build my church" and the current issue is the historical fallacy of the claim that the apostle Peter ever gave his specific apostolic authority to the first bishop of the roman congregation. Are you trying to argue a DIFFERENT point?

As the Roman congregation came to Power, it sought to claim apostolic level authority from Peter. The historical dilemma is that historically, Peter never gave the roman congregation that specific authority it claimed. The pattern of our discussion underscores the historical dilemma. You are spending multiple posts without being able to offer any data that helps relieve this problem. Ridicule and changes of subject are not helpful to establish your argument.

For examples :

1) You claim “you are seeing only what you want to see, which doesn't surprise me one iota since you're into the LDS propaganda mindset.”
Metis, I am certainly wanting and willing to change historical models. That is the way historians make progress. But you must offer some DATA to us to support a position. Subtle ridicule does not help since it does not demonstrate that Peter gave his apostolic level authority to the roman congregation.

2) You then claimed “…the issue of the papacy… was one of evolution..”
While I agree with this point, it is irrelevant since it does not demonstrate that Peter gave his apostolic level authority to the roman congregation.

3) You then referred to “…the onslaught of "heresies" and the utter "theological confusion…”
Again, I agree with you that heresies and confusion were problematic. However these are irrelevant points since they do not demonstrate that Peter gave his apostolic level authority to the roman congregation.

4) You then claimed that I ignore 2nd century data (which you claim exists but have not yet presented)
I have not ignored 2nd century but in fact have pointed out that the Roman claim that Peter gave apostolic authority to Rome originated in the later eras and there were no early period claims that Linus was given Peters' apostolic authority.

5) You claimed that you “don't expect [me] to agree”, but you still have not offered any relevant data to consider on the historical point at hand, that is : Did Peter given bishop Linus of the Roman congregation his apostolic authority or not? Nothing in your post is relevant to this question.

6) You claim the 2nd century church saw itself as "one body", while the issue at hand is a 1st century problem. How does this point demonstrate that the apostle Peter gave bishop Linus his apostolic authority?

7) You claim “one would be hard-put to explain Ignatius' letter to Clement” but you have not offered us any specific quote from the letter you refer to. I am familiar with the apostolic Fathers and can refer to them in their original language, but, since you have not actually offered a specific reference, how can forum readers tell what you are referring to? A vague reference to a letter does not demonstrate that the apostle Peter gave bishop Linus his apostolic authority.

8) You then suggest that I “get into the various 2nd century letters”. You still have not given us specific examples of how such letters demonstrate Peter gave Linus his apostolic authority?

9) You then said : “This is not some sort of "Catholic conspiracy" that I'm spouting.”.
No one has brought up this sort of silly “conspiracy” irrelevance. We have simply been discussing the lack of data to support the claim that Peter gave bishop Linus his apostolic authority.

10) You then reposted and said you “posted some evidence to support where I'm coming from” in post 218.
DOES ANYONE ON THE FORUM SEE ANY DATA SUPPORTING THE CLAIM THAT PETER GAVE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY TO BISHOP LINUS (OR ANY OTHER BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATION) IN POST # 218??? I did not see any relevant data in #218.



Metis, scores of some very, very fine historians have spent careers in vain to find the supporting data to show Peter was Bishop of Rome and that he transferred his Apostolic level authority to the obscure bishop of the roman congregation. No one has ever been able to do it. I can’t tell why you continue irrelevant posting on this point without actually offering readers any data to support this specific claim that Peter gave his apostolic level of authority to a bishop of the roman congregation. Do you think YOU have found data that they did not find? If so. Offer it to us.


Clear
εινεσιειω

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi Metis,

It occurred to me that perhaps you might not understand the nature of the problem, historically.

HISTORICALLY, NOT ONLY WAS PETER NEVER A STANDING BISHOP IN ROME, BUT THERE WAS NEVER ANY PERIOD APPROPRIATE DATA TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM


For example : The Patrologiae Graeca dedicates TWO ENTIRE VOLUMES to Clement, who was a Bishop over the Roman Congregation at most for only 10 years (and no one regarded Clement as important as Peter), yet when one turns to the earliest written traditions for Rome, the records speak of Clement and are silent on Peter.

If Peter stayed in Rome, ESPECIALLY if he actually became Bishop of Rome, then there should be a great deal of textual records as there are for Clement. However, I am asking : where are Peter’s sermons, his miracles, his conversations, is administrative acts, etc. The Clementine records write a great deal regarding personal daily interactions with Peter when Peter is in Palestine. But, upon leaving Palestine, even Clement loses sight of Peter and writes nothing of what happened to him. If Peter DID go to Rome, then the silence and void is even more astounding.

Metis, YOU could give us examples of these early texts which should exist and thus support this theory that Peter was a bishop in rome and gave his apostolic authority to Linus.


A) If Peter HAD BEEN a sitting Bishop in Rome and head of the church, then he would have written MORE than only first peter.

It is inconceivable that a “bishop” Peter would NOT have written something during the more than two decades it is claimed that he was Bishop. Remember, Peter does NOT have to write with his own hand, but need simply employ a few secretaries. Origen and Augustine kept several secretaries very busy taking their dictation in their prodigious production of texts. Paul doesn’t write his text, but leaves it to another to write. Also, as administrative support increases, the ease with which texts are generated increases, ease of transmission increases; ease of stationary storage increases; ease of distribution increases; and the ease and amount of copying improves.

You could try to find examples of any other texts Peter might have written during a 20 plus year reign as a bishop of Rome. No one else has found a single one.


B) During this time period, the Christian churches are experiencing amazing growth (which requires guidance and administration to a greater degree than churches in a “steady state).

It is inconceivable that Peter would not have provided this guidance and administration, much of it in the form of written text. If he was a bishop, I do not believe he would have written LESS than as an apostle-missionary, but he would probably have written MORE as administrative duties requiring textual communications grew (though the nature of and content of the texts would have been somewhat different).

Metis, You could try to find a small receipt, a small text or reference to business or discussions of a “bishop Peter” with someone…..anyone, in Rome during these hypothetical 20 plus years.


C) The Apostle Peter would have continued to give many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts over a 20 year period and I believe that such texts would have been copied and distributed just as other sacred christian texts were copied and distributed widely.

Metis, You could try to find a small testimony from a “bishop Peter” that describes a Christian belief, ANY Christian belief, ANY testimony that was given by a “bishop peter” during these 20 plus years. None have been found.


D) There was continuing concern with growing apostasy and heresies and conflicting doctrines as the Christian movement took root among differing culture and countries and Peter, if he had been acting as a “general Bishop” would have continued to send textual letters (epistles) out to attempt to deal with such issues. The Galatians were not the only ones who were “soon removed” from the original teachings of the Apostles. Peter would have offered guidance and admonishment as other Bishops did (clement, ignatius, etc).

Metis, You could try to find some written guidance, a letter, a small discussion between a bishop peter and another person about this issue during these 20 plus years. None have been found.


E) Much of this guidance would have been Doctrinal guidance in a textual form as Peter encouraged corrections to competing doctrines and questions that arise concerning the gospel.

Metis, You could try to find some doctrinal guidance, a letter, a small discussion between a bishop peter and another person about this issue during these 20 plus years. None have been found.


F) Peter would have had at least a few public debates or at least public "disagreements" from detractors, such as his extraordinary debate with Simon Magnus, which were immortalized in the Clementine recognitions. Clement wrote of these early debates Peter had, others would have written about continuing debates in Rome had Peter been there.

Metis, You could try to find a description of a public debate or even a small discussion between a bishop peter and another person about this issue during these 20 plus years. None have been found.


G) Any Petrine administration in Rome would have generated textual records associated with mundane administrative affairs; the buying of supplies and food and records relating to the distribution of welfare. Such is the nature of the majority of the earliest hierarchal records of egypt from thousands of years previous. Some of these should be extant.

You could try to find one of these. No one has found a single one so far.


H) The continuing miracles which were to follow “those that believe” would have continued in Peter and many of them would have been textually documented and immortalized had he been in one place over a period of 20 years. Healing and miracles he continually wrought would have been written about by both the Christians and the non-christians in a community in which Peter lived for 20 years.


Metis, You could try to find a description of a miracle performed by a bishop peter during these 20 plus years. No such descriptions have been found.

post two of two follows

 

[Clear]

I) Textual records associated with other organizational and administrative tasks within a growing christendom itself, records of those who were directly ordained and sent by the Peter as a “bishop” to a certain task would have existed, (Certainly many more ordinations than Peters’ single ordination Clement alone)

J) At least some texts a hypothetical Petrine Bishopric sent out to different countries and congregations would not have been highly valued and retained.

It is very unlikely that all copies of all such documents created over 20 years as a Bishop of a rapidly enlargening religious movement in all places they were sent in all cities of an enlargening Religious movement would have undergone destruction. For example, we have a fair amount of the correspondence that took place between the Priests of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the priests of it’s sister jewish temple in Egypt (Elephantine), why would none exist; be discussed; or at least be known of having at one time existing.




THE DEPTH OF HISTORICAL INCONCEIVABLENESS DEEPENS WITH ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND.

For example, it is NOT just PETER’S “writings” that we should find evidence of, but there should be writings generated ABOUT Peter the Bishop by others.

For example:

A) The ROMAN’S themselves, in their administrative duties, would have written ABOUT Peter as a Bishop and mention something about their interactions and knowledge of him as a Bishop of the Christian Church there. What are the chances, given the record keeping ability of the Roman government, that THEY would have lost all such records concerning Peter as well as all church records be lost in all parts of the world where such records would have been sent?

Metis, You could try to find a roman description or even a discussion about a bishop peter during these 20 plus years. None have been found.


B) The ENEMIES of Christianity would have written about Peter and the Christians just as others (such as Celsus) had done. for years. For example: Why would the ongoing Jewish and Pagan leaders continued complaining about “Peter and the Christians” have no records?

Metis, You could try to find complaints about acts or teachings of a bishop peter during these 20 plus years. None have been found.



C) What are the chances that none of the historians, “small or large”, altogether avoided writing about Peter as the head of the Roman Church. It is inconceivable to me that some historian, either small or great, living near the time of Peter, a “bishop of Rome” would not have written about him. Josephus, who returned to live in Rome doesn’t mention Peter as Bishop of Rome, Tacitus doesn’t, Suetonius' knew vespacian and he even he had access to the imperial archives (which presumably would have SOMETHING about Peter in them), yet his series of biographies (“Illustrious Men”) doesn’t mention Peter (though it included poets and orators), If Plutarch mentioned Peter as Bishop, this part of his textual history did not survive. Did Peter, as a bishop, not rate enough importance for ANY historian? If he DID rate, then were ALL such records destroyed?

Metis, You could try to find a previously undiscovered historical description whether large or almost unknown of a bishop peter during these 20 plus years. None have been found.


D) At least ONE of the members of the Roman congregation would have written about Peter in a personal diary or a secular text that at least MENTIONED a famous "Bishop" Peter. For example, we know so much about what early Christianity taught and was like, even about the early martyrdoms through the diary of Perpetua. She writes about her Bishop Optatus (who is certainly NOT a famous person). Why would no other members of the church in rome or in any other place, congregation or local, discuss Peter as their bishop in some extant diary entry or letter? Many, many personal experiences should have and would have been written by many literate individuals who would have access and dealings with Peter as a standing bishop.

Metis, You could try to find an early diary or description from some other source regarding a bishop peter during these 20 plus years. None have been found.


I think I’ve oversimplified this description as it is even more complicated than this, but it introduces other historical issues that one must consider besides the simple issue of whether Peter himself wrote or did not write texts. It introduces some context as to why very prominent scholars would teach that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome for 20 years as Catholic tradition suggests.


HISTORICALLY, PETER WAS NEVER A SITTING BISHOP TO THE ROMAN CONGREGATION AND THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT DID NOT RECEIVE NOR HAVE APOSTOLIC LEVEL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

The Roman Movement’s motive in claiming to having the authority of Peter were simple

There were many early Christian congregations in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. In the centuries after the Apostles died. The Roman Religious movement historically, tried to distinguish themselves from other fellow schizmatics on the basis of at least two claims. They repeatedly claimed to have greater RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY and they claimed to have ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.

These claims make things VERY simple historically.

IF the Roman congregation actually DID and DOES have authentic religious authority from God and actually DOES teach the authentic and original Christian traditions, then all other Christians not having authority from God and not possessing “original Christian traditions” should repent and turn toward roman catholic theology (as some other congregations did).

IF the derivatives from the Roman congregation DO NOT have authentic religious authority and DO NOT teach the authentic and original Christian traditions nowadays in any greater degree than any other of the various christianities, THEN claims based on special authority and original traditions are rendered moot (though OTHER claims may be valid) and we should look ELSEWHERE for religious authority and authentic christian theology (if those characteristics are what we are looking for...)

I hope this makes sense why the Roman Christian Movement made the claim that Peter was their sitting Bishop of Rome and why they made the claim that he gave THEM his apostolic authority over all others. It was a wonderful gambit to gain influence and power. But it never happened historically.


Clear
εινεσιφιω

 

[metis]

While I agree with this point, it is irrelevant since it does not demonstrate that Peter gave his apostolic level authority to the roman congregation.

How many times have I told you that this is not the point because we simply do not know what Peter may have or may not have said because not everything is recorded. Therefore, whether Peter did or did not teach as such is unknown and, thererfore, moot.

But what is known is that there was an early evolution as such going in that direction, which is what Ignatius' letter to Clement is at least partially about. I pointed that it out in my post #218, which you have either haven't read or choose to ignore.

However these are irrelevant points since they do not demonstrate that Peter gave his apostolic level authority to the roman congregation.

You gotta be kidding, right?

You claim “one would be hard-put to explain Ignatius' letter to Clement” but you have not offered us any specific quote from the letter you refer to.

Look it up-- you got Google. I'm not going to waste my time with one who simply is not willing to do the homework and also repeatedly makes nonsensical requests even when presented with a source that verifies what I've been saying. And then you throw a massive word-mash against the wall that makes it virtually impossible to respond to without writing a book.

Hey, you can believe in any fantasy that you want, but I have no interest in feeding it. You can have your own opinions but not your own facts. I am temporarily putting you on my ignore list because I don't want to be tempted again to continue on this "conversation".

 

[metis]

BTW, here's a link to a series of quotes dealing with this, but I'm sure someone will just reject them out of hand because it's a Catholic source: Peter's Successors | Catholic Answers

Here's some:

Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).



Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).



The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Many verses in the Bible say that Jesus is the "rock". And the well-known hymn "Rock of Ages" says that Jesus is the "rock." Another hymn says "on Christ, the solid rock, I stand". Why would Peter suddenly become the rock that the church was built on and why would God build His church on any human instead of on His son, Jesus?

 

[metis]

Let me finish with this:

Early belief in the Church is that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the Church. In "Who is the Rich man that is Saved", St. Clement of Alexandria writes of "the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, [who] quickly seized and comprehended the saying" (Ch. 21), referring to Mk10:28. Tertullian,[18] while examining Scriptural teachings, legal precedents, and dogma surrounding monogamy and marriage (post AD 213), says of Peter, "Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him..." ("On Monogamy", Ch. 8): his certainty that the Church is built especially upon Peter is such that he simply refers to it in the context of another discussion. In a slightly later text (AD 220) "On Modesty", Tertullian writes at length about the significance of Matthew 16:18-19, "On this rock I will build my Church" and similar, emphasizing the singular, not plural, right, and condemning "wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter" (Ch. 21). Origen (c. AD 232) wrote also of "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ" (Jurgens §479a). St. Cyprian of Carthage [2] prepared an essay discussing, inter alia, Mt. 16:18-19, titled "On the Unity of the Church" (AD 251) in which he strongly associates primacy, unity, the authority of Jesus, and Peter: "On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity" (Jurgens §555-6). Jurgens gives Cyprian as an example of "Papal Primacy being 'implicit' in the early Church." -- Historical development of the doctrine of papal primacy - Wikipedia

The point that I must repeat is that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was an evolution, but it was an evolution with precedent. It was not as if someone got up some morning and said "Let's make the Bishop of Rome the spiritual head of the Church!", and then everyone said "Yah, that's a good idea!".

Because of the challenges in the 2nd century and beyond, organization became crucial, and every organization needs a head of one type or another. Because of Paul's insistence that the church be of "one body", it makes sense that the leadership would eventually coalesce around one person and then passed down through apostolic succession, which is how it was done with Jesus and the apostles.

Without doing that, there's a question as to whether the church would have survived without complete fragmentation, and it was this same church that chose the Christian Bible.

Anyhow, moving on...

 

[metis]

Many verses in the Bible say that Jesus is the "rock". And the well-known hymn "Rock of Ages" says that Jesus is the "rock." Another hymn says "on Christ, the solid rock, I stand". Why would Peter suddenly become the rock that the church was built on and why would God build His church on any human instead of on His son, Jesus?

That was covered in a previous post a while back.

The issue of the use of "rock" pertained not only to Jesus at times but also to Peter. Peter's assigned name from Jesus in Aramaic was "Kephas", which is a word for "rock". However, when "Kephas" was translated into Koine Greek, and because Greek is largely gender-based, there was a problem because Peter's name had to be put in the masculine gender. In Aramaic, there is no such problem.

The primary "rock" the church was built on was obviously Jesus, and Peter and the eventual Bishops of Rome and other locations are obviously not Jesus. But Jesus must have given Peter that name for a reason, and since "kephas" means "rock", ...

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

Regarding the claim that Peter was a standing bishop and gave the roman Bishop Linus his apostolic authority.

1) Metis responded : “How many times have I told you that this is not the point because we simply do not know what Peter may have or may not have said because not everything is recorded. “
This feels like it is part of a constant attempt to change the subject to a more comfortable context. While I very much agree that there are no period appropriate historical records to support Peter as a standing bishop (this has been consistently my point as well), there are historical records showing Linus was the first bishop.


2) Metis said : Ignatius' letter to Clement …. which you have either haven't read or choose to ignore.
This is disingenuous. I have ASKED you to quote the data you are referring to. If you know something the historians have all missed, I have asked you to give us the data. Instead of quoting it, you then say : “Look it up-- you got Google. “

I actually have copies of the apostolic Fathers in English and greek. I have read them. I will even make some points using Ignatius' letter in this post. However, you still have not given us the specific quote you think supports Peter giving his apostolic authority to the bishop of the roman congregation. I have read Ignatius’ letter to the roman congregation multiple times, but I have never seen it support this transfer of Peters’ power to Linus. Honestly, this feels like a “bait and switch” where you indicate the letter supports this transfer of power when it actually refers to a different historical point.

As I pointed out in post #224, If you will finally give us the quote which you think documents the transfer of apostolic power from Peter to the roman bishop, I think readers would all appreciate examining it. I think readers will find it does NOT document this transfer of apostolic authority at all, but instead, it is a bait and switch.


3) Metis said : I'm not going to waste my time with one who simply is not willing to do the homework and also repeatedly makes nonsensical requests even when presented with a source that verifies what I've been saying.
You keep saying you have a “source that verifies” and I keep asking for data so that readers can see if it “verifies” that Peter gave his authority to a bishop of the roman congregation. Instead of claiming that you have data that no other historian in history has seen, PRESENT YOUR DATA.


4) Metis said : And then you throw a massive word-mash against the wall that makes it virtually impossible to respond to without writing a book.
Metis, my post simply demonstrates that there is no early period data supporting the claim that Peter was a standing bishop of Rome for 20 plus years.


5) Metis said : “here's a link to a series of quotes dealing with this, but I'm sure someone will just reject them out of hand because it's a Catholic source: Peter's Successors | Catholic Answers
Metis, this“Catholic source” is fine. However, once again, It is obvious that the quotes you offer us DO NOT show that Peter gave his apostolic authority to the bishop of the roman congregation.

For examples : you offer us Irenaeus : The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). (Metis, Post #228)

You left out part of the sentence. The FULL Sentence says, : “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

Thus, even your own quote undermines your argument. The quote clearly says that the Apostles committed to Linus the office of bishop (επισκοπος). It clearly states LINUS was the first bishop of rome (since Anacletus and Clement followed him “in the third place”) and it clearly states Linus was made a BISHOP (επισκοπος = bishop) and NOT an apostle. NOWHERE in this quote does it say Peter gave Linus his authority, nor even the office of apostle.

Metis, you quoted Tertullian thusly : "T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]). " (Metis, post #228)

As with the prior quote, this quote simply tells us Clement was ordained by Peter. IT DOES NOT GIVE LINUS (NOR CLEMENT) THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY OF PETER.

Once we actually start exchanging DATA, one can see the problems in the “letters” you say exist but which no one else has found to support the claim that Peter gave apostolic authority to the bishop of the Roman Congregation.


I will return to your third quote later. It is important. However, let me make clear to readers the reason that Rome created the historical myth of Peter, being the first Bishop of Rome and claimed that Peter gave the bishop of their congregation his authority. Let me also discuss themes from the letter of Ignatius which you claim supports the transfer of authority from Peter to the bishop of Rome (but which you still have not quoted so as to allow us to examine your claim).


WHEN JERUSALEM AND ANTIOCH HAD PRE-EMINENCE AND ROME WANTED PRE-IMMINENCE
Just as we all tend to feel our own religious views are the correct ones, it was only natural for the Roman Religious movement to feel the same and to desire to promulgate and proselyte its’ evolving version of Christianity. In order to “win out” over other versions of Christian worldviews, it needed to become the dominant doctrinal worldview and the most powerful proselyting organization if its doctrinal and administrative views were to compete and dominate other views. In context of AUTHORITY, the early Roman congregation felt the need to demonstrate superior ecclesiastical authority which they did not, in fact, have. The pressure to “create the fascade” of authority mounted until patriots of the roman congregation began manipulating textual history to this end.

1) Existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence.
For example : Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23, says, “The brother of the Lord, James, took over the church along with [μετα + genitive] the apostles.” (PG 20:197) Yet Jerome translates this passage : “suscepit ecclesiam Hierosolymorum post [μετα + accusative] apostolos frater Domini Jacobus” –(Jerome De Viris Illustrtibus 2, in PL 23:639) p 32 – which translation changes James position, making him appear to be a successor to the apostles, (whom he did not succeed at all). Yet such corruption of history was necessary if they were to establish an apostolic succession through bishops.


2) NEW texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence.

For example : The text of “The Gospel of the twelve apostles” has Christ ordain Peter an “archbishop” though such an office did not exist until it was created centuries later. (Gospel of the 12 apostles, in PO 2:147) Yet, such manipulations and counterfeiting was necessary if one was to create a historical basis to justify the roman claim over the other congregations.

For example : According to the apostolic constitutions, when the church was being formally organized, a fictitious Peter suggested first of all ordaining a bishop in the presence of all the apostles, including Paul and James, bishop of Jerusalem – pouring all their united authority into one vessel, and then doing homage to him!. (Constitutiones Aposolicae 8.4-5, in PG 1:1069-76);

Another example are the Several letters of "Clement" containing counterfeit history were foisted on the other Christians. There are several versions of spurious letters supposedly written by the third bishop of Rome (Clement). In one fictional account Peter says of Clement : “I transmit to him [Clement] the power to bind and loose, etc.” (epitome de Gestis Sancti Petri 145; in PG 2:577).

Before this statement, the fictious Peter had always reserved these powers to himself. Yet the record tells us that “Linus” and “Cletus” already “sat on the great throne of Rome” BEFORE the fictitious Peter gives this power to Clement. Since neither Linus, nor Cletus had that authority, then the Peter's presidency of the church is something quite apart from the bishopric of Rome.

In each version of this letter, the fictitious Peter makes Clement promise that “… when I die you write a letter to James, the Lords brother, telling him how close you have been to me…Let James be assured that after my death the seat will be occupied by a man not uninstructed in nor ignorant of the doctrines and the canons of the church.” (ibid) as a justification for Peter not having simply dictated a letter to the other apostles, telling them that they, as apostles and prophets, now answered to a simple bishop (who was neither an apostle, nor a prophet).

Even these letters use the designation for James as “the ruler of the Holy church of Christians in Jerusalem AND of the churches…everywhere.” (ibid). The contradictions are rife in these counterfeits, such that they were discarded as legitimate history very quickly. Instead of enhancing the claim to authority, they became an embarrassment as they revealed machinations that would not have occurred in the early Christian movement.


This story of bishop Clement duplicates the earlier (and better authenticated) story written by the same Clement of how Peter had already ordained Zaccaeus bishop of Caesaria. (homiliae Clementinae 3:60-72; in PG 2:149-57). This historian Carl Schmidt concluded that “the homilist created this section [homilae Clementinae 3.59-62] independently in order to fill in an emerging void caused by the loss of the original, disputed material.

In that account, Peter had already ordained Zaccaeus as the bishop of Caesarea (1); Zaccaeus had already mounted the throne of Peter (2); Zaccaeus had already been hailed by Peter as vicar of Christ (3) and Zaccaeus had already sat on the throne of Christ (4), which is, according to Peter, analogous to the judgment seat of Moses BEFORE Clement underwent the same process.

Though such letters do not represent authentic history, still, such attempts to create counterfeit history DO tell us much about the motives and methods of the Roman movement as well as its’ deep desire to gain pre-imminence by multiple means that would Not have been acceptable to the organization Ignatius was referring to as “καθολικος” in 100 a.d.. The two are not the same organisations.

Post two of three follows

 

[Clear]

POST TWO

The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem.

The roman congregations' bishop and his “successors” were not given greater authority than James, bishop of Jerusalem and his “successors”.

The Roman congregation and the Christian doctrines created by the theologians associated with it became popular and pre-eminent, but they were never the “mother church”.

Such dogmatic claims of being “the original church” were part of their struggle to gain pre-eminence and credibility for their theology and political position.

In saying all of these things, no one need suppose that I am saying that the roman motives were simply evil in attempting pre-eminence by such devices. I think the Romans wanted pre-eminence and power and influence just as we all want our personal theologies to gain pre-eminence and to be influential. I’m not saying that by doing these things, the Romans were trying to do evil things, I do not believe that, but I am simply that they are not historically correct claims. The church Ignatius was describing in his use of καθολικοσ in 100 a.d. was not the later Roman Catholic Church of 400 a.d..


1) IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY, AN APOSTLE AND A BISHOP WERE TWO SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT OFFICES

We have, already discussed the historic fact that we have no period appropriate evidence that the Roman Bishopric was, historically, given any apostolic level of authority from Peter nor any other member of the 12 Apostles. IF this is correct, then the later Bishops of the Roman Christian Movement and its associated churches were never authentic and actual successors to THAT apostolic authority in any way that cannot be claimed by all other churches.

The Roman theologians did create an office they called “bishop”, but this office was different in many important ways than the early judao-christian office of Bishop. Instead of a local and limited congregational office, it became, in the roman theological system, a position of general authority, of inequality to other bishops. The Roman movements’ office of “Bishop” underwent early and significant contaminations with politics, power, and riches.

In early and authentic Christianity, the office of a congregational, standing BISHOP was different that the office of one of the traveling 12 APOSTLES. The higher authority and commission of a traveling apostle was above and different to the lower authority and commission of a congregational bishop, (an επισκοπος / epi – skopos meaning, an “over” – “seer”). Anciently, bishops did not inherit the office of one of the 12 apostles upon the death of the apostle that ordained the BISHOP.

As the various cities vied for power and pre-eminence, the Roman Religious Movement adopted its existing office of Bishop to fill the role of apostolic power. Since Rome no longer had authentic apostles, it did what it could and attempted to fill the role of apostleship with a bishop.
I am NOT claiming that the theologians who created catholic theory were evil in changing Christianity in these ways. I think they were often simply trying to do the best that they could given the lack of apostolic and prophetic authority.

This historian Lake points out the obvious change taking place in early roman Christianity. “If we ask who were the most important people in the Christian church in the first generation,” Lake writes, “the answer is undoubtedly, the Apostles and Prophets. If we go on farther, and ask who was the most important person in the church at ROME at the end of the second century, the answer is unquestionably that it was the Bishop. But the difficulty comes when we inquire how this change took place; for that is precisely the problem to which no undoubted or unquestionable answer can be given.” (Lake, Christian Life in Rome, 37-38)

This is why great historians such as Eduard Schwartz, finding no data to support the roman claim, designated the theory of the “monarchical episcopate as bearer of the apostolic succession “ as a “legal fiction,” the true nature of which is apparent in many things. (Eduard Schwartz Kaiser Constanin und die Christliche Kirche – Stuttgart : Teubner, 1969, 24)

Even the great Catholic Historian Duchesne, who sought, for his entire career, in vain for data to support Apostolic Authority in the Catholic Movement, describes the Roman Movements change in the leadership from the authority of prophets and apostles to Local Bishops: “… when the first age of the church passed away, this itinerant, ubiquitous (i.e. general) personnel disappeared entirely, and nothing was left but the local ecclesiastical organizations.” (Duchesne, origins du Culte Chretien, 14);

ORIGINALLY, BISHOPS WERE LOCAL OFFICES

Bishops, in the earliest authentic Christianity were standing bishops and were associated with watching over a single congregation. They were, as the Catholic historian Duchesne said, part of “the local ecclesiastical organizations” that was left after the apostles died. This is why they were referred to as the bishop of the CITY they over saw :. The bishop of Jerusalem. The bishop of Antioch. The Bishop of Lyons. The Bishop of Rome. Etc. They were associated with their city. The apostles were special embassaries and missionaries who, by their nature, traveled to fulfill their callings and they were NOT associated with the overseeing of a specific city since they were overseers of the many churches.

From the earliest times, the bishops and apostles existed side by side as contemporaries; still, we never hear of bishops traveling with apostles for the specific purpose of being “trained” to become one of the 12 apostles. In fact, very early orders penalize a bishop for leaving his city. A bishop could not travel for long, and an apostle, as an emissary, had to travel. (127 canons of the apostles 2.12, in Francois Nau and Rene Graffin, eds., Patrologia Orientalis – Paris : Libraire de Paris, Firmin-Didot, 1903-), 8:668-9)

Thus the didache speaks of how to treat a traveling apostle and prophet who visited the congregation and the P.Orientalis specified punishment for a bishop who traveled away from his congregation for any length of time. Since the seventy also had a similar role to the apostles, they were commonly regarded as taking over in place of the apostles. This is why Hippolytus lists the names of “the seventy apostles.” (Hippolytus, De LXX Apostolis in PG 10:953-58);



THE LETTER OF IGNATIUS AND THE CONCEPT THAT ORIGINAL BISHOPS WERE NOT THE SAME AS APOSTLES

When the dogmatists were supplanted by historians who viewed the problem of the organization of the early church, it became apparent, says Linton, “that the episcopate is not a continuation of the apostolate,” (Lake, “Christian Life in Rome”, 38). Once this became clear, historians set about to determine and better define the ancient church organization. Lake observed : “it is not less clear that the functions of an apostle were quite different from those of a presbyter or bishop and that functionally the apostle is akin to the prophet, not to the presbyter.” (p 38, Lake, “Christian life in Rome,” 38-39). Apostles and Prophets were itinerant to a great degree whereas Bishops and Presbyters were associated with a standing office.

If one will keep the authentic early context in mind, then it makes perfect sense why Peter would tell Clement (the third bishop of the roman congregation), that, “At the present time,” ( says Peter in the Clementine Recognitions) “do not look for any other prophet or apostle except us. There is one true prophet and twelve apostles.” ( PG 1:1330)

Just like Ignatius (the Bishop of Antioch) indicated in his letters, Polycarp, (the bishop of Smyrna) also, when writing to the churches, confessed that he is no wise to be considered on par with the apostles : “For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul. He, when among you, accurately and steadfastly taught the word of truth in the absence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter….which will build you up in that faith which has been given you.” (Epistola ad Philippenses 3.2, in PG 5:1008);

During the confusion after the apostles died when multiple bishops are trying to gain authority and some are being shuffled out of their positions by congregations, one sees various pleadings for individuals to honor the present episcopal authority. In doing this, they do not claim any apostolic authority. For example, in his pleading Clement, (the Bishop of Rome) also fails to mention any office of his own; fails to give any direct orders (he is even more apologetic than Ignatius…), nor does he appeal to apostolicity in the office of a bishop, which would have made his case open and shut. Instead, he merely ventures as an opinion…that there is nothing in the scriptures which says evil men should depose good, and so there is no reason for deposing a good bishop.

He mentions no apostolic tenure, nor does he mention the later claim of the Roman Religious Movement that he is a true successor and has apostolic authority. In mentioning authority Clement writes: “Christ came from God”, “and the apostles from Christ.” (Clement, epistola primera ad Corinthios 42.2 in PG 1:292.) but the early bishops did NOT claim the next step by saying “and the bishops from the apostles”.

POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE

None of the early apostolic fathers / bishops make the claim that the roman bishops of later centuries were to make; that they had some sort of “apostolic level of authority”.

Early bishops knew they did not have that level of authority and in fact, deny that they do. “Shall I,” writes the third bishop of Antioch after Peter, the head of the largest and, next to Jerusalem alone, the oldest church in Christendom, “reach such a pitch of presumption…as to issue orders to you as if I were an apostle?” (Ignatius, Epistola ad Philadelphenses 4, I PG 5:828)

Bishop Ignatius knew he did not have the authority of one of the 12 apostles. Though he may have been “apostolic” in the strict sense that the bishopric in his city originated when peter ordained a bishop in Antioch, still, being “apostolic”, in that sense did not give him the authority of an apostle.”

This revelation is even more remarkable since the main subject of Ignatius’s letters is episcopal authority. Churches are having trouble choosing and sustaining bishops, and Ignatius, who is appalled by the wild disorder he finds in the churches, takes it upon himself to encourage them to follow their bishops. He pleads the cause of the episcopate; even demanding absolute submission of the faithful to their bishops; and yet, the two main arguments which form the basis of catholic claims (and which would have given his pleading the authority and influence they deserved..) do not appear. In fact, Ignatius, desirous for a general authority to appeal to, finds none and he explicitly disclaims being one. He and says he speaks not because anyone has ordered or permitted him to, but simply because his love “will not let him hold his peace”. (Ignatius, Epistola ad Romanos 4.3; 8-9, in PG 5:677, 680; Epistola ad Trallianos 3:5-6, in PG 5:589, 693-96

The historian Reville observes upon his study of this literature : “One cannot insist too much on this curious fact in the Ignatian literature: the complete absence of any allusion to the apostolic nature of the episcopate, and to any justification of the episcopal power by the principle of apostolic succession.” (Reville, “Etudes sur les Origines de l’episcopat,” 285);

If Ignatius could have appealed to the Roman Catholic theory of apostolic succession for bishops is would have solved his problem in making his opinions authoritative; but he can’t do it. If fact he, tells them why he cannot do this ? “they were apostles,” he wrote to the Romans. “I am but a man.” (ep ad Romanos 4.3 in PG 5:689 (see also 5:808).

Reville noted also that “if the authority of the bishops had really been as well established as well established as Ignatius wants it to be, it would not have been necessary to insist with such energy that people respect them.” (Reville, “Etudes sur les Origines de l’Episcopat,” 287.) “It is impossible to dispute,” wrote Jean Revile, “that the episcopate as represented in the Epistle of Ignatius is essentially a local function, the authority of which is limited to the community in which it was exercised. Never does Ignatius appeal to his title of bishop of Antioch to give more authority to his instructions.” P26 (“Etudes sur les Origines de l’Episcopat: La Valeur du Temoignage d’Ignace d’ Antioche,” revue de l’Histoire des Religions 21 (1890); 284)

No one viewed congregational Bishop with especial awe as apostolic officers in the end of the first century.

Other sects at the time noted that the office of Bishop could not be the highest office in the true church. The wonderful and learned Tertullian also noted that and thus he left the church that was coming under increasing amount of roman influence. (Tertullian, De Pudicitia 21: in PL 2:1077-80).

The Catholic historian P. Batiffol, in his attempt to help support the roman concept of the new role of Bishops, announced that in the ancient church, priests could not have cathedras, saying “The cathedra [bishops chair, seat, “see”] is the exclusive insignium of the bishops – the symbol of his authority, the symbol of the unity of the church.” (Pierre Batiffol, Cathedra Petri : Etudes d’Histoire ancienne de l’Eglese – Paris : de la Tour Maubourg, 1938), 108)

This may have worked if roman dogmatists had been the only players. But NOT in a historical period that was increasingly under the influence of true historians. Hugo Koch points to Constanine’s references to presbyters’ thrones in 314 and cites many ancient texts to show that priests as well as bishops had chairs or thrones. (Hugo Koch, “Bischofsstuhl und Presterstuehle zu Canon 58 von Elvira,” Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 7 -1925 : 172-75) P 41; Duchesne discovered that for a long time there was only one bishop in all of Gaul --- the other churches were governed by other officers. (Louis Duchesne, Fastes Episcopaux de l’Ancienne Gaule, 2nd ed. – Paris Fontemoing, 1907), 1:39-40).

Though the Priests and presbyters (rather than bishops) had chairs (i.e. hedrin or those WITH the hedrin, thus the jewish version was syn-hedrin / Sanhedrin = with the chair or authority). These are examples where other offices have an ability to “watch over” but only relative authority to each other.

ALL are engaged in the same sacred calling, all held offices of varying degree and ALL work toward the same purpose. Still all offices functioned at differing levels, and the fact that these levels resemble each other does not mean that these offices are the same.

According to a letter attributed to Anacletus, there are two types of priesthood: (1) The Lord sent the apostles into the various provinces, but when their converts became too numerous to handle, (2) he then sent out the seventy-two disciples. “Now the bishops occupy the place of the Lord’s apostles, while the presbyters occupy that of the seventy-two disciples.” P18 (Anacletus, Epistola 3.1, in PG 2:812) They “hold the places [locum tenant] once held by these, but it does not follow that their priesthood or authority is identical, but only that those earlier officers had been replaced by another kind since the apostles were no longer present. It made perfect sense for a present “highest officer” to hold the place of the prior highest officer. Still, they did not then have all authority and power of the 12 apostles. They were a substitute, doing the best that they could. (Until they became corrupted with power and money and worldly issues).

Historians of the early centuries have long known the true nature of the earliest Christian bishopric. That is the reason the later specific Catholic claim to having received the authority of Peter crumbled as church history became under the influence of the HISTORIAN and less under the influence of the roman catholic DOGMATIST.


Historically, the authority of the apostle Peter, was never given to the bishop of the Roman Congregation.

I'm leaving work and will be traveling tonight and will have to get back to other issues later. Metis, I hope you and other readers have a good Christmas.

Clear
τωτζειφυω

 

[MJFlores]

After Simon said to Jesus "You are the Son of God", Jesus replied "thou art Peter (meaning stone), on this rock I will build my church". What did he mean? This could be taken two or three ways. Did Jesus mean he would build his church on the solid truth, a rock of truth "thou art the Son of God", Did he mean he would he build his church on Peter, or did he mean both?

Which brings up a related question. Why wouldn't Jesus call himself the Son of God?

I have heard the Vatican says it means Christ would build his church on Peter and justifies "Apostolic successsion". Somehow even protestant churches are saying the same. (did the Vatican secretly subvert the Protestant churches?)
The bible says you are all equal and one is your Father, (teacher, rabbi, head), Christ who is in heaven. And in many places calls Jesus "the rock". and not to add to or take away from scripture.

Could it mean both? Jesus is the big ROCK, the spiritual Father, and Peter is the little rock, head of the mundane, material or earthly side. If that was so wouldn't Jesus have said "on these rocks I will build my church"?

On your 1st Paragraph
Jesus built his Church (Matt 16:18). Who is the rock?

Romans 9:33
As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Therefore it wasn't Peter. That rock was solely Christ.

Your 2nd paragraph. - He did say he was the Son of God.

John 10:36-37 New International Version (NIV)

what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.

Your 3rd paragraph.
Well I believe, they are entitled to their claim of Apostolic Succession. Even Joseph Smith of the Mormon Church had their Jesus sent to North America to visit the Indians and the gold plates showed by Moroni attempts to boost their divine election. People have delusions, dreams are free. It is in the doctrines that you begin to see all of it.

Your last paragraph.
Let us use the Amplified Version of the Bible:

Matthew 16:18 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros—a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra—a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

Peter Greek, Petros—a large piece of rock

this rock Greek, petra—a huge rock

That is the difference between Peter and the rock

Let us ask Peter who this rock is really? Is it him or the Lord Jesus? Or both? In his letter:

1 Peter 2:4-8 New International Version (NIV)

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

I believe - Christ is God's stone in Zion, chosen, precious cornerstone that causes people to stumble and causes people to fall. Christ is the chosen, precious rock on which his Church was built. But of course builders rejected that stone, and chose Peter.

 

[metis]

Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic and, according to the gospel of Matthew, Jesus changes Simon's name to "Peter", which would be "Kephas" in Aramaic and means "rock". However, when translating into the Greek, since Greek uses gender in it's language structure, the name "Petra" could not be used since it would make Peter into a woman-- therefore "Petros" was used.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Many verses in the Bible say that Jesus is the "rock". And the well-known hymn "Rock of Ages" says that Jesus is the "rock." Another hymn says "on Christ, the solid rock, I stand". Why would Peter suddenly become the rock that the church was built on and why would God build His church on any human instead of on His son, Jesus?

Peter was a Jew and he never converted to Christianity. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that he was the "rock" of a Christian church. If you ask me, the rock of the Church was Paul, the founder of Christianity. (Acts 11:26)

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

No, onky Christ is called the rock.The is no reason God would build a church on anyone but His Son.

 

[Ben Avraham]

No, onky Christ is called the rock.The is no reason God would build a church on anyone but His Son.

If you read Exodus 4:22,23 God Himself says: "Israel is My Son. So, let My Son god that He may serve Me." Do you think God was lying?

 

[metis]

No, onky Christ is called the rock.The is no reason God would build a church on anyone but His Son.

See post #236, plus it's a reminder that, according to Matthew's gospel, it was Jesus who gave Peter his new name, and we well know what the name signifies because the name has to mean something.