Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[BobRyan]

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

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

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

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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

That is a reasonable comment on the rock in 1 Corinthians 10:4 but the verse says nothing about foundations. 1 Corinthians 10:4 says nothing about Matthew 16:18.

This discussion started with

John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).​

and it mentioned as a hint

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.​

The idea was to draw attention to the renaming of Simeon bar Jonah as Cephas/Peter - leader of the apostles of Jesus Christ - and Christ's remark to Peter/Cephas that upon this rock the church was to be built. Peter (whose name means rock) is identified as the rock upon which the church is to be built.

 

[FredVB]

If James was the leader of the Church, why is he mentioned only 7 times in Acts, compared to Peter, who is mentioned 70 times?

Btw, after Peter left Jerusalem, James was appointed as the leader (bishop) of the Church in Jerusalem only ... that doesn't mean James was the leader of the universal Church.

You did not answer why not use Yahweh's name, that is mentioned almost 7000 times in the scriptures, that there was commandment to always remember. If you can answer that, you just might then have a case, maybe. It is otherwise completely irrelevant to the discussion.

There is nothing in passages showing there was any leader over a universal church, other than Jesus Christ. The government of the empire was an oppressive force to be concerned with, and there was concern about the other Jews who were hostile to the believers of this new faith then.

In that case Peter made a defense, he still necessarily deferred to James, as the others there did.

Matt 16:18 says "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Tell me, why did Jesus begin that sentence by addressing Peter, if nothing in the remainder of that sentence applies to Peter?

If Peter is not "this rock", Matt 16:18 makes no grammatical sense.

You are basically hung up about rocks. It was very common, and in that age there was not much other material being used. There were lots of references to rock. So it was the gospel truth of Christ is the rock of the gospel. Christ drew attention to that when reminding Simon he had been called Peter, with that meaning of a rock. Since there are no scriptures to support that other interpretation you speak for, it would be understood with all the many passages showing the essential things of the gospel of Christ.

You don't know that ALL the traditions taught by the apostles are recorded in the NT. That is a baseless assumption on your part.

In John 16:12-13, Jesus says,
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth."
This passage implies that, in the fullness of time, the Holy Spirit would reveal additional things to the Church that Jesus did not necessarily teach and things that are not necessarily recorded in the Scriptures. This is why 1Tim 3:15 says the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth", not the Scriptures.

Jesus could build his Church on a man because he bestowed on a man - Peter - a power that belongs only to God - "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

It is easy to say to another that one does not know something, as all of what traditions there were, when not knowing them oneself.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Petros is masculine (as opposed to petra, which is feminine), therefore in Matt 16:18, Peter is petros because Peter is a man.

Hi nice to meet you. I am only providing the Greek grammar here to be helpful as it does not support your view here that Peter is "the rock" being referred to in Matthew 16:18 but allow me to show why if it might be helpful.

The scripture says;

• Matthew 16:8 [18], And I say also to you, That you are (1) Peter, and on (2) this (3) rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Greek

• [18] καγώ δε σοι λέγω οτι συ ει (1) Πέτρος και επί (2) ταύτη τη (3) πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την εκκλησίαν και πύλαι άδου ου κατισχύσουσιν αυτής (ABPi)

Peter: Πέτρος

The word Peter Πέτρος means “piece of rock”, it’s larger than a λίθος (stone) but smaller than a πέτρα (rock). The word λίθος is the normal word for “stone”. The word πέτρα means a “massive rock, a ledge, a slab” So there is a λίθος, πέτρα and Πέτρος.

The word Πέτρος occurs 156 times in the New Testament. Except at John 1:42, where it is used to clarify the Aramaic Κηφαέ. Πέτρος is only used in the NT as the nickname of Simon, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus. It occurs 29 times with Σίμων (Simon); of those 29 times, three occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16).

As already shown in this OP, Cephas (Simon) also bears another name, Κηφᾶς This name is a Greek transcription of the Aramaic word [Kepha]. It is found in John 1:42 [42], And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone (Πέτρος; petros meaning is a piece of rock or pebble). The interpretation here of Cephas according to the scripture here is to petros meaning a pebble or piece of rock.

Masculine and feminine use

The word “Peter Πέτρος” is in the Masculine Gender; this is of crucial importance to understand.It should also be noted that Πέτρος was not only used as a Proper Noun. It was also used as the word “stone” as evident in Hom.+; Jos., Bell. 3, 240, Antiquities 7, 142.xx It is also used to mean ‘a piece of rock’ as in Homer (cfέ Illiad, vii, 2ιί and Illiad, xvi, 784).

and upon this rock; και επί (2) ταύτη τη (3) πέτρα

When used with the dative, επί [upon] can be understood in a spatial, temporal, or causal sense that is something that relates to something else. Here, a spatial understanding works best, and the word may be understood as “on, upon”. The object of επί should be understood as πέτρα (rock) to which it is pointing to.

this; ταύτη

Demonstrative

Christ had previously used two Personal Pronouns – συ [thou] and σοι (thee) in this sentence. Christ could have easily said, "and upon you the rock” - επί συ or επί σοι however, He didn’t. Rather, Christ switched from direct address “you” to the demonstrative – this [ταύτη]. Matthew chose to use Peter Πέτρος (petros - a stone) and πέτρα (petra rock), two different words, whose very collocation marks a conscious juxtaposition, indicates clearly his intention to distinguish the two terms.

Gender and number

The Gender of the word “Peter | Πέτρος” is in the Masculine whilst the Demonstrative Pronoun “this | ταύτη” is in the Feminine Gender. The ‘general’ rule of Greek Grammar regarding Pronouns and the antecedent to which they modify; Pronouns agree with their antecedent in gender and number. Their case is determined by their use in their own clause Peter (the stone) being masculine singular while "this rock" being feminine singular. The word “this | ταύτη” rock thus does not refer to the word “Peter | Πέτρος” since “Peter | Πέτρος” is not in the Feminine Gender as is the Pronoun - This | ταύτη. The word “this | ταύτη” however, refers to the word “rock | πέτρα” since it is in the feminine and the
gender is singular in number.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is clear that Peter is not the rock of Matthew 16:18 since:

• (a) The demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ does not agree with the σoun, Peter - in Gender and Number;

• (b) The conversation moves from direct address “you” [Peter] to the demonstrative – this [therefore directing the scope of conversation from Peter to something else]; and

• (c) The Aramaic Argument begs the question and even if true; there are alternative ways that the Greek could have mimicked this hypothetical Semitic conversation. Instead, the author chose not to present this in like manner.

Thus, Peter is not the rock and it is far more plausible – grammatically, that either the rock is referring to Christ or Peter’s confession of faith. (Grammatical analysis of Matthew 16:18)

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Buzzard3]

Hi nice to meet you. I am only providing the Greek grammar here to be helpful as it does not support your view here that Peter is "the rock" being referred to in Matthew 16:18 but allow me to show why if it might be helpful.

The scripture says;

• Matthew 16:8 [18], And I say also to you, That you are (1) Peter, and on (2) this (3) rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Greek

• [18] καγώ δε σοι λέγω οτι συ ει (1) Πέτρος και επί (2) ταύτη τη (3) πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την εκκλησίαν και πύλαι άδου ου κατισχύσουσιν αυτής (ABPi)

Peter: Πέτρος

The word Peter Πέτρος means “piece of rock”, it’s larger than a λίθος (stone) but smaller than a πέτρα (rock). The word λίθος is the normal word for “stone”. The word πέτρα means a “massive rock, a ledge, a slab” So there is a λίθος, πέτρα and Πέτρος.

The word Πέτρος occurs 156 times in the New Testament. Except at John 1:42, where it is used to clarify the Aramaic Κηφαέ. Πέτρος is only used in the NT as the nickname of Simon, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus. It occurs 29 times with Σίμων (Simon); of those 29 times, three occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16). It occurs 28 times with Σίμων of those 29 times, three
occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16).

As already shown in this OP, Cephas (Simon) also bears another name, Κηφᾶς This name is a Greek transcription of the Aramaic word [Kepha]. It is found in John 1:42 [42], And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone (Πέτρος; petros meaning is a piece of rock or pebble). The interpretation here of Cephas according to the scripture here is to petros meaning a pebble of piece of rock.

Masculine and feminine use

The word “Peter Πέτρος” is in the Masculine Gender; this is of crucial importance to understand.
It should also be noted that Πέτρος was not only used as a Proper Noun. It was also used as the word
“stone” as evident in Hom.+; Jos., Bell. 3, 240, Antiquities 7, 142.xx It is also used to mean ‘a piece of
rock’ as in Homer (cfέ Illiad, vii, 2ιί and Illiad, xvi, 784).

and upon this rock; και επί (2) ταύτη τη (3) πέτρα

When used with the dative, επί [upon] can be understood in a spatial, temporal, or causal sense that is
something that relates to something else. Here, a spatial understanding works best, and the word
may be understood as “on, upon”. The object of επί should be understood as πέτρα (rock) to which it is pointing to.

this; ταύτη

Demonstrative

Christ had previously used two Personal Pronouns – συ [thou] and σοι (thee) in this sentence. Christ
could have easily said, "and upon you the rock” - επί συ or επί σοι however, He didn’t. Rather, Christ
switched from direct address “you” to the demonstrative – this [ταύτη]. Matthew chose to use Peter Πέτρος (petros - a stone) and πέτρα (petra rock), two different words, whose very collocation marks a conscious juxtaposition, indicates clearly his intention to distinguish the two terms.

Gender and number

The Gender of the word “Peter | Πέτρος” is in the Masculine whilst the Demonstrative Pronoun “this
| ταύτη” is in the Feminine Gender. The ‘general’ rule of Greek Grammar regarding Pronouns and the antecedent to which they modify; Pronouns agree with their antecedent in gender and number. Their case is determined by their use in their own clause Peter (the stone) being masculine singular while "this" being feminine singular. The word “this | ταύτη” thus does not refer to the word “Peter | Πέτρος” since “Peter | Πέτρος” is not in the Feminine Gender as is the Pronoun - This | ταύτη. The word “this | ταύτη” however, refers to the word “rock | πέτρα” since it is in the feminine and the
gender and is singular in number.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is clear that Peter is not the rock of Matthew 16:18 since:

• (a) The demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ does not agree with the σoun, Peter - in Gender and Number;

• (b) The conversation moves from direct address “you” [Peter] to the demonstrative – this [therefore directing the scope of conversation from Peter to something else]; and

• (c) The Aramaic Argument begs the question and even if true; there are alternative ways that the Greek could have mimicked this hypothetical Semitic conversation. Instead, the author chose not to present this in like manner.

Thus, Peter is not the rock and it is far more plausible – grammatically, that either the rock is referring to Christ or Peter’s confession of faith. (Grammatical analysis of Matthew 16:18)

Hope this is helpful.

The fact that Jesus give Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in Matt 18:19 supports the claim that Peter is the "rock" in the previous verse.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

The fact that Jesus give Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" in Matt 18:19 supports the claim that Peter is the "rock" in the previous verse.

Hi Buzzard nice to see you again. The keys of the kingdom in the following scripture form Matthew 16:19 do not support a claim that Peter was the rock from Matthew 16:18. This was proven from the Greek grammar and scripture contexts already provided in the post you are quoting from. The keys of the kingdom was Peter accepting Christ as the promised Messiah and also the gospel (the Word of God) as shown in the context of the same chapter (see Matthew 16:13-17; see also Matthew 18:18; John 20:23 where Christ confers the same powers on all the Apostles). The keys of the kingdom is therefore faith in Gods' Word *John 1:1-4; 14). The scriptures teach nowhere that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16 as the grammar proves that Upon "this rock" (feminine singular) is a reference to Jesus as foundation rock not Peter (a piece of rock) masculine singular in the same scripture in the Greek. Accordingly, the passage has much to say in announcing Christ himself. Paul presents Christ as the anti-type able to fulfill the event that petra the true rock foreshadows in the wilderness, offering the ‘living water’ when struck (1 Corinthians 10:4; from Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:8) or as the petra rock of offense to His unbelieving people when they rejected him as the cornerstone of the temple of God to be (Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8). These indications allow identifying Christ with the petra rock of the pre-existent Christ the Church of Christ is only impregnable and unconquerable in the true foundation Rock, who is Christ himself. The metaphor of the Rock (te petra with articles) shows where the real power which would keep the Church safe lies. The word's play as a symbol of this firmness, and the apostle was the one to emphasize Christ as the promised Messiah (Matthew 16:13-17). Peter was the stone or piece of rock petros, but he was not the firm solid rock (petra). The difference here is not due first to the personal usage, but to the material reference.

CONCLUSION:

The metaphor built on the words play Petros-Petra and Christos-Petros in the whole passage indicates that the verse is referring to Jesus based on the previous declaration of Peter on the Messiah. Hence, Matthew 16:18 speaks metaphorically, of Christ; (a) as the anti-type fulfilling the event foreshadowed by the rock in the wilderness, offering "living water" when struck (1 Corinthians 10:4); (b) as the rock of offense to Israel when it rejected him as the spiritual cornerstone or capstone of the invisible temple of God (Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8).

Take care.

 

[Buzzard3]

The keys of the kingdom was Peter accepting Christ as the promised Messiah and also the gospel (the Word of God) as shown in the context of the same chapter (see Matthew 16:13-17; see also Matthew 18:18; John 20:23 where Christ confers the same powers on all the Apostles).

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Jesus did not give the "keys" to all the apostles - only Peter received the "keys".

(I'm from Qld too, but have been living in NSW for the last ten years. Hope the Maroons win Wednesday night!)

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Jesus did not give the "keys" to all the apostles - only Peter received the "keys".

Well you would need to deny a lot of scripture contexts, including the Greek grammar and word meanings to make those claims as shown from the last few posts. All you have done here in response is to say you disagree without proving why or providing any evidence as to why you disagree accept to say you disagree. Everyone who has faith in Gods' Word (the gospel) receives the keys of the kingdom because the keys of God's kingdom is faith in God's Word and Christ as the Messiah. Faith in God's Word therefore are the keys that lead us to everlasting life and Gods kingdom. This is the context of Matthew 16:13-19. The rest of what Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:19 was also repeated to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18 so we might have to agree to disagree on your claims here but it was nice talking to you.

(I'm from Qld too, but have been living in NSW for the last ten years. Hope the Maroons win Wednesday night!)

Go Qld!

 

[prodromos]

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Jesus did not give the "keys" to all the apostles - only Peter received the "keys".

That is not the consensus of the Church Fathers.

(I'm from Qld too, but have been living in NSW for the last ten years. Hope the Maroons win Wednesday night!)

Go the Blues!

 

[Buzzard3]

That is not the consensus of the Church Fathers.

I didn't know that.

Go the Blues!

Great team ... but what a pity they're gunna get hammered Wednesday nite. Bring some tissues.

 

[Davy]

I don't think there's any disagreement among Christians of any variety that Simon bar Jonah was given the name Cephas/Peter by Jesus.

Where disagreement comes into it is what Jesus means "upon this rock I will build My Church".

When we look at the Fathers of the Church, it's hardly as simple as "Peter is the rock, and therefore the successor of St. Peter has a position of primacy". In fact, that isn't the argument the ancient Fathers take.

St. Augustine, for instance, points to the "Rock" upon which the Church is built is Christ Himself, as he writes in his Exposition on the Psalms (see Exposition on the Psalms, LXI.3). St. John Chrysostom identifies the "Rock" as St. Peter's confession in his Homilies on Matthew (see Homily 54 on Matthew, 3). While it is also true that Tertullian and Cyprian seem to identify Peter himself as the rock.

-CryptoLutheran

That is especially true since the office of a "bishop of bishops" (early label for a pope) did not appear until about the 3rd century A.D. The idea that Apostle Peter was the first 'pope' (or "bishop of bishops") is a myth pushed by the Catholic Church in trying to claim authority over God's Word and all believers.

Their claim is a myth, because the actual reason why a "bishop of bishops" (pope office) was created around the 3rd century was because of independent bishop disagreements in trying to gain political authority between both the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. So they agreed to create the political office of the 'pope' (or "bishop of bishops" as it was originally called). This is why even the 1611 KJV translators in their Letter called the pope by the title of "bishop of bishops", and that they only deferred to him what authority all other believers on Christ Jesus have.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is especially true since the office of a "bishop of bishops" (early label for a pope) did not appear until about the 3rd century A.D. The idea that Apostle Peter was the first 'pope' (or "bishop of bishops") is a myth pushed by the Catholic Church in trying to claim authority over God's Word and all believers.

The 3rd century would be the 200's. There was no papacy then, or in the 4th century, or the 5th, or 6th. The papacy evolved and emerged in the high middle ages.

The bishop of Rome does sit in the seat of St. Peter, as all the historic episcopates trace back to the apostles. Antioch is the seat of Paul and Peter, Alexandria is the seat of Mark, Jerusalem is the seat of James, Byzantium (later Constantinople) is the seat of Andrew. That's never been under dispute.

Their claim is a myth, because the actual reason why a "bishop of bishops" (pope office) was created around the 3rd century was because of independent bishop disagreements in trying to gain political authority between both the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. So they agreed to create the political office of the 'pope' (or "bishop of bishops" as it was originally called). This is why even the 1611 KJV translators in their Letter called the pope by the title of "bishop of bishops", and that they only deferred to him what authority all other believers on Christ Jesus have.

Again, nothing was created around the 3rd century. The papacy did not exist until hundreds of years later. Even in the 6th century Pope St. Gregory wrote a letter condemning the idea of a universal pastor, when the bishop of Constantinople claimed such a title and was rebuked for it--the irony being that the rebuke came from Rome, which just centuries later, would pull the same. With the Great Schism of 1054, the bishop of Rome was effectively free of accountability by the Eastern patriarchs. Leaving effectively no one to challenge the accumulative power of the papacy.

The word "pope" originally was used for all bishops, which is why the bishop of Alexandria is still called "pope" today. Rome took that in its own direction, a direction which led to schism with the East, and also schism with the Evangelical Reformers later on.

Where are you getting this "3rd century" stuff? Where are you getting this idea that both Rome and Constantinople created a political office of "the pope"? The bishop of Rome did not gain any temporal authority until the Donation of Pepin, which created the Papal States. And the late medieval forgery known as the Donation of Constantine drastically expanded that later on.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Davy]

The 3rd century would be the 200's. There was no papacy then, or in the 4th century, or the 5th, or 6th. The papacy evolved and emerged in the high middle ages.

The bishop of Rome does sit in the seat of St. Peter, as all the historic episcopates trace back to the apostles. Antioch is the seat of Paul and Peter, Alexandria is the seat of Mark, Jerusalem is the seat of James, Byzantium (later Constantinople) is the seat of Andrew. That's never been under dispute.

Again, nothing was created around the 3rd century. The papacy did not exist until hundreds of years later. Even in the 6th century Pope St. Gregory wrote a letter condemning the idea of a universal pastor, when the bishop of Constantinople claimed such a title and was rebuked for it--the irony being that the rebuke came from Rome, which just centuries later, would pull the same. With the Great Schism of 1054, the bishop of Rome was effectively free of accountability by the Eastern patriarchs. Leaving effectively no one to challenge the accumulative power of the papacy.

The word "pope" originally was used for all bishops, which is why the bishop of Alexandria is still called "pope" today. Rome took that in its own direction, a direction which led to schism with the East, and also schism with the Evangelical Reformers later on.

Where are you getting this "3rd century" stuff? Where are you getting this idea that both Rome and Constantinople created a political office of "the pope"? The bishop of Rome did not gain any temporal authority until the Donation of Pepin, which created the Papal States. And the late medieval forgery known as the Donation of Constantine drastically expanded that later on.

-CryptoLutheran

It's all sillieness isn't it, the idea of pope? The Catholic Church keeps a yearly list of their 'claimed' popes, claiming Apostle Peter was the first one.

The reality is that it's the office of Christian 'bishop' in the way that Apostle Paul taught, Linus in Rome actually being the very first one. By the 3rd century, strife between bishops in Rome and Byzantine began to emerge, which would eventually cause both to agree to an office of "bishop of bishops".

 

[ViaCrucis]

By the 3rd century, strife between bishops in Rome and Byzantine began to emerge, which would eventually cause both to agree to an office of "bishop of bishops".

You keep saying this, but I have no idea what you are even referring to. What you describe here never happened. And strife between the bishops of Constantinople and Rome didn't emerge until long after the 3rd century. The first major issue between East and West was the Photian Schism. While some tensions had arisen earlier, for example when the bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne "Roman Emperor", that didn't sit very well in Constantinople where there was already a Roman emperor.

The Photian Schism was the first time the two sees fell out of communion, though it was ostensibly restored, the Great Schism of 1054 set in stone that division which had begun earlier; and was not finalized until the Council of Florence (aka Council of Basil-Ferrora-Florence) which effectively killed any chance of Rome and Constantinople (and the other Eastern Sees) being restored to communion with one another. And effectively cemented the Papacy for what it would evolve into during the Reformation and into the modern period.

What I don't understand is what you refer to as the creation of an office by both Rome and Constantinople (aka Byzantium), especially one that happened in the 3rd century.

In the 3rd century the Church, both East and West, was still in an age of martyrdom. In fact the 3rd century was the most brutal era of persecution in the Roman Empire for the Church, this is the century of the Diocletian Persecution, which continued into the 4th century, until being finally put to an end by the Edict of Toleration in 311 AD.

What 3rd century strife, and what cooperation between Rome and Constantinople creating an office of "bishop of bishops" are you talking about?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Davy]

You keep saying this, but I have no idea what you are even referring to. What you describe here never happened. And strife between the bishops of Constantinople and Rome didn't emerge until long after the 3rd century. The first major issue between East and West was the Photian Schism. While some tensions had arisen earlier, for example when the bishop of Rome crowned Charlemagne "Roman Emperor", that didn't sit very well in Constantinople where there was already a Roman emperor.

The Photian Schism was the first time the two sees fell out of communion, though it was ostensibly restored, the Great Schism of 1054 set in stone that division which had begun earlier; and was not finalized until the Council of Florence (aka Council of Basil-Ferrora-Florence) which effectively killed any chance of Rome and Constantinople (and the other Eastern Sees) being restored to communion with one another. And effectively cemented the Papacy for what it would evolve into during the Reformation and into the modern period.

What I don't understand is what you refer to as the creation of an office by both Rome and Constantinople (aka Byzantium), especially one that happened in the 3rd century.

In the 3rd century the Church, both East and West, was still in an age of martyrdom. In fact the 3rd century was the most brutal era of persecution in the Roman Empire for the Church, this is the century of the Diocletian Persecution, which continued into the 4th century, until being finally put to an end by the Edict of Toleration in 311 AD.

What 3rd century strife, and what cooperation between Rome and Constantinople creating an office of "bishop of bishops" are you talking about?

-CryptoLutheran

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

 

[prodromos]

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

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

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Oh... boy.

Just throw that out into the dumpster.

The patriarchates were not "bishop of bishops", they were bishops. What set them apart was their historical importance and thus, other bishops often looked up to them. The See of Rome had a special honor, due to its historic orthodoxy.

But there's a vast difference between honor and authority. The ancient apostolic sees were held in high esteem and honor, but that did not make them super-bishops where all their brother-bishops were subservient to them. That simply isn't how the Church understood itself, not in the 2nd century, not in the 3rd century, not in the 4th century...

The confusion between honor and authority is, in part, where Rome went astray in the late middle ages. It was that confusion that allowed the Pope to think he could change the Nicene Creed without the need of an Ecumenical Council and the full consent of the Church.

This has always been one of the major grievances and criticisms which the Eastern Orthodox have levied against Rome.

The problem with narratives like the one you offer in the link, is that it is West-centric, and conceives of the history of the Church with a purely western bias. And the history of the Eastern Churches end up being, at best, historical footnotes or simply subsumed under a bland neo-Protestant anti-Roman Catholic bias.

So, again, allow me to repeat myself: No, Rome and Constantinople did not come together to create a new office of "bishop of bishops". That never happened, and it certainly didn't happen in Christian antiquity.

The truth of the matter is that Nicea recognized three of the ancient apostolic sees of important prominence at the time: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea 325 AD), and also to Jerusalem was granted an equal honor (Canon 7 of the same). To these four were also added Constantinople as having a like honor to that of Rome as it is the "New Rome" (Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople 381 AD). Thus by the end of the 4th century there were five patriarchal sees, these were important sees because of their history, prominence, and honor. And that's it. Nicea didn't make Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch the most important, it merely recognized their already established importance, likewise with Jerusalem, and then at the First Council of Constantinople, likewise with Constantinople.

Nothing new was added. Both Councils merely recognized, officially, what was already true: these historic centers of the Christian faith had, since the first century, been on the front lines, in the trenches. The major Christological and other theological controversies were, had frequently been addressed by the honorable and Christ-loving churchmen from these. And that continued to be the case after Nicea.

This is made obvious if one simply looks and reads the council canons themselves.

CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)
CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)

-CryptoLuthearn

 

[Buzzard3]

It's all sillieness isn't it, the idea of pope?

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

 

[Buzzard3]

Hi nice to meet you. I am only providing the Greek grammar here to be helpful as it does not support your view here that Peter is "the rock" being referred to in Matthew 16:18 but allow me to show why if it might be helpful.

The scripture says;

• Matthew 16:8 [18], And I say also to you, That you are (1) Peter, and on (2) this (3) rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Greek

• [18] καγώ δε σοι λέγω οτι συ ει (1) Πέτρος και επί (2) ταύτη τη (3) πέτρα οικοδομήσω μου την εκκλησίαν και πύλαι άδου ου κατισχύσουσιν αυτής (ABPi)

Peter: Πέτρος

The word Peter Πέτρος means “piece of rock”, it’s larger than a λίθος (stone) but smaller than a πέτρα (rock). The word λίθος is the normal word for “stone”. The word πέτρα means a “massive rock, a ledge, a slab” So there is a λίθος, πέτρα and Πέτρος.

The word Πέτρος occurs 156 times in the New Testament. Except at John 1:42, where it is used to clarify the Aramaic Κηφαέ. Πέτρος is only used in the NT as the nickname of Simon, one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus. It occurs 29 times with Σίμων (Simon); of those 29 times, three occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16). It occurs 28 times with Σίμων of those 29 times, three
occur in the Gospel of Matthew (4:18; 10:2; 16:16).

As already shown in this OP, Cephas (Simon) also bears another name, Κηφᾶς This name is a Greek transcription of the Aramaic word [Kepha]. It is found in John 1:42 [42], And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone (Πέτρος; petros meaning is a piece of rock or pebble). The interpretation here of Cephas according to the scripture here is to petros meaning a pebble of piece of rock.

Masculine and feminine use

The word “Peter Πέτρος” is in the Masculine Gender; this is of crucial importance to understand.
It should also be noted that Πέτρος was not only used as a Proper Noun. It was also used as the word
“stone” as evident in Hom.+; Jos., Bell. 3, 240, Antiquities 7, 142.xx It is also used to mean ‘a piece of
rock’ as in Homer (cfέ Illiad, vii, 2ιί and Illiad, xvi, 784).

and upon this rock; και επί (2) ταύτη τη (3) πέτρα

When used with the dative, επί [upon] can be understood in a spatial, temporal, or causal sense that is something that relates to something else. Here, a spatial understanding works best, and the word may be understood as “on, upon”. The object of επί should be understood as πέτρα (rock) to which it is pointing to.

this; ταύτη

Demonstrative

Christ had previously used two Personal Pronouns – συ [thou] and σοι (thee) in this sentence. Christ could have easily said, "and upon you the rock” - επί συ or επί σοι however, He didn’t. Rather, Christ switched from direct address “you” to the demonstrative – this [ταύτη]. Matthew chose to use Peter Πέτρος (petros - a stone) and πέτρα (petra rock), two different words, whose very collocation marks a conscious juxtaposition, indicates clearly his intention to distinguish the two terms.

Gender and number

The Gender of the word “Peter | Πέτρος” is in the Masculine whilst the Demonstrative Pronoun “this | ταύτη” is in the Feminine Gender. The ‘general’ rule of Greek Grammar regarding Pronouns and the antecedent to which they modify; Pronouns agree with their antecedent in gender and number. Their case is determined by their use in their own clause Peter (the stone) being masculine singular while "this rock" being feminine singular. The word “this | ταύτη” rock thus does not refer to the word “Peter | Πέτρος” since “Peter | Πέτρος” is not in the Feminine Gender as is the Pronoun - This | ταύτη. The word “this | ταύτη” however, refers to the word “rock | πέτρα” since it is in the feminine and the
gender is singular in number.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is clear that Peter is not the rock of Matthew 16:18 since:

• (a) The demonstrative pronoun ‘this’ does not agree with the σoun, Peter - in Gender and Number;

• (b) The conversation moves from direct address “you” [Peter] to the demonstrative – this [therefore directing the scope of conversation from Peter to something else]; and

• (c) The Aramaic Argument begs the question and even if true; there are alternative ways that the Greek could have mimicked this hypothetical Semitic conversation. Instead, the author chose not to present this in like manner.

Thus, Peter is not the rock and it is far more plausible – grammatically, that either the rock is referring to Christ or Peter’s confession of faith. (Grammatical analysis of Matthew 16:18)

A problem with your argument is that in Koine Greek (the language the gospel of Matthew was originally written in) there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra ... they both mean exactly the same thing - rock.

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

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

 

[LoveGodsWord]

A problem with your argument is that in Koine Greek (the language the gospel of Matthew was originally written in) there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra ... they both mean exactly the same thing - rock.

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

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

Not really Buzz. Firstly I never called Πέτρος a pebble. Perhaps you are getting me mixed up with someone else? All three Greek meanings for the various rock sizes have already been considered and provided in the post you are quoting from Πέτρος means “piece of rock or detached rock,”, it’s generally larger than a λίθος (stone or pebble) but generally smaller than a πέτρα (foundation rock). The word λίθος is the normal word for “stone or pebble”. I never used this in application to Peter as shown above. The word πέτρα means a “massive foundation rock, a ledge, a slab” So there is a λίθος, πέτρα and Πέτρος and they are all appellative words meaning they are all related to each other. There is a difference in the meaning of these Greek words unlike what your claiming here and the grammar your disregarding is the key to understanding who is being referred to as "the foundation Rock" and as shown why earlier in post # 364, it is not Peter. You are also disregarding everything else provided from scripture in post # 366 showing that scripture refers to Jesus as being the foundation Rock all through the old and new testament. Take your time in prayerfully re-reading what was shared to you in my earlier posts Buzz. There is quite a lot presented there and I believe it all links nicely together.

Take Care.