Peter Is Not The Rock!

[Fireinfolding]

Peter is the rock -- catholic legend
Peter started the christian church -- catholic legend
Peter was the first "pope" -- catholic legend

But lokt, you are beating your head against a concrete wall. Remember that Jesus told us there would be many like these (many are called, meaning tht many want to be Christians), but few are chosen (meaning that God gave us one single roadmap, the Bible. Only it can lead us to the straight gate after following the narrow path). If you look at scriptural facts (the Truth of God), there are many who honestly believe they can use idols and all sorts of other non-scriptural legends to get to God. Why, they even pray to created beings to ask for things. They deny God's truth, and try to do it their way. And of course they rely on their long history as their justification for believing so many things that are not in the Bible (God's only truth), or that are actually condemned by God.

And they will even claim that the Bible should never have been written because 1. God never ordered it to be written, or 2. Jesus was certainly capable of writing it but He never wrote a single word. They completely ignore that God did order it written by the various apostles. The Holy Ghost inspired every single word of it, but that doesn't matter. And they also toss out the "inspired traditions" rubbish, but never take the time to rationalize that many of their "inspired" traditions actually contradict what is found in Scripture.

No, Peter did not start the Christian Church in rome. There were hundreds of Christian churches already established long before the Christian Church in Rome was started. And Peter did not start that church, either. Anyone reading Romans and understanding Paul would know that he never preached where any other apostle had already preached Jesus, and he was the first apostle to preach in Rome as he clearly tells us. But that truth doesn't matter because their church has a legend that they believe instead.

Sometimes I think that I should write a book...

Matthan

Id read it Mathan

I enjoy your posts

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[Trento]

Peter is the rock -- catholic legend
Peter started the christian church -- catholic legend
Peter was the first "pope" -- catholic legend

But lokt, you are beating your head against a concrete wall. Remember that Jesus told us there would be many like these (many are called, meaning tht many want to be Christians), but few are chosen (meaning that God gave us one single roadmap, the Bible. Only it can lead us to the straight gate after following the narrow path). If you look at scriptural facts (the Truth of God), there are many who honestly believe they can use idols and all sorts of other non-scriptural legends to get to God. Why, they even pray to created beings to ask for things. They deny God's truth, and try to do it their way. And of course they rely on their long history as their justification for believing so many things that are not in the Bible (God's only truth), or that are actually condemned by God.

And they will even claim that the Bible should never have been written because 1. God never ordered it to be written, or 2. Jesus was certainly capable of writing it but He never wrote a single word. They completely ignore that God did order it written by the various apostles. The Holy Ghost inspired every single word of it, but that doesn't matter. And they also toss out the "inspired traditions" rubbish, but never take the time to rationalize that many of their "inspired" traditions actually contradict what is found in Scripture.

No, Peter did not start the Christian Church in rome. There were hundreds of Christian churches already established long before the Christian Church in Rome was started. And Peter did not start that church, either. Anyone reading Romans and understanding Paul would know that he never preached where any other apostle had already preached Jesus, and he was the first apostle to preach in Rome as he clearly tells us. But that truth doesn't matter because their church has a legend that they believe instead.

Sometimes I think that I should write a book...

Matthan

People use scripture to satisfy their individual purpose resulting in people departing from what Scripture mandates concerning "one Lord, one faith and one baptism."

 

[Fireinfolding]

People use scripture to satisfy their individual purpose resulting in people departing from what Scripture mandates concerning "one Lord, one faith and one baptism."

Id definately stick with those speaking to and of Jesus Christ, one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism.

Scripture testifies OF HIM, departing FROM THE LORD is spoken about as well.

Fireinfolding

 

[Trento]

Trento, the aramaic MSS are NOT extant. Scholars can debate all they want but the fact of the matter is that there is NO way to prove it. This is NOT a legitimate argument.

You want me to believe that Jerome a scholar in Greek and Aramaic who translated the Bible from its original text got his translation wrong.


"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18



In the commentary on Isaias, AD 411

"This house (Is 2:1) is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, who are themselves mountains, as imitators of Christ....Wherefore upon one of these mountains Christ founds the Church, and says to Peter, "Thou art Peter and on this Rock i will build MY Church"(Commentary on Isaias, vol IV, 31[44])
​

 

[Hentenza]

You want me to believe that Jerome a scholar in Greek and Aramaic who translated the Bible from its original text got his translation wrong.


"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18



In the commentary on Isaias, AD 411

"This house (Is 2:1) is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, who are themselves mountains, as imitators of Christ....Wherefore upon one of these mountains Christ founds the Church, and says to Peter, "Thou art Peter and on this Rock i will build MY Church"(Commentary on Isaias, vol IV, 31[44])
​

Jerome used the Greek Septugiant and the hebrew texts to translate. He did not translate from the aramaic.
And the commentary is Jerome's opinion.

 

[sunlover1]

You want me to believe that Jerome a scholar in Greek and Aramaic who translated the Bible from its original text got his translation wrong.


"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18




In the commentary on Isaias, AD 411

"This house (Is 2:1) is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, who are themselves mountains, as imitators of Christ....Wherefore upon one of these mountains Christ founds the Church, and says to Peter, "Thou art Peter and on this Rock i will build MY Church"(Commentary on Isaias, vol IV, 31[44])​

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. But you will say, how comes it then that at Rome a presbyter is only ordained on the recommendation of a deacon? To which I reply as follows. Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception which has given rise to arrogance and pride?" -Jerome(Letter 146:1-2)

 

[ScottBot]

Kephas = Petros
Kephas = Rock
Petros =/= Rock?

Maybe I am missing a simple twist of linguistics, but if Simon's name was changed to Kephas, which is Aramaic for Rock, are we going to now claim that Jesus didn't change his name to Rock? Are you using Bill Clinton's disctionary, the one where things don't really mean what they do?

 

[Fireinfolding]

You want me to believe that Jerome a scholar in Greek and Aramaic who translated the Bible from its original text got his translation wrong.


"As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15(A.D. 375),in NPNF2,VI:18





In the commentary on Isaias, AD 411

"This house (Is 2:1) is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, who are themselves mountains, as imitators of Christ....Wherefore upon one of these mountains Christ founds the Church, and says to Peter, "Thou art Peter and on this Rock i will build MY Church"(Commentary on Isaias, vol IV, 31[44])​

It must be NOTED Jesus specifically adresses THE THEM here and as the verse notes (that you quoted) its APOSTLES (PLURAL) and WHO is the FOUNDATION (OF THEM)? Their foundation is Christ as no other foundation can be laid but the one laid, which is CHRIST.


Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom SAY YE THAT I AM?

When He adresses the THEM CONCERNING WHO ~HE~ IS it's CONTRASTED against WHO MEN SAY ~HE~ IS because Jesus is going to show them that what they have the ABILITY to RECCOGNIZE and CONFESS is NOT of MEN (neither revealed of FLESH and BLOOD nor by MAN) but GIVEN THEM OF THE FATHER Himself (thats why HE PETER /THEY are BLESSED) and the THEM is answered for in the ONE PETER

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and SAID, ((( Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ))).

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, BLESSED ART THOU, SIMON BARJONA: for (((((( flesh and blood hath NOT revealed)))))) it unto thee, (((( BUT MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN )))

BECAUSE OF what the FATHER hath REVEALED To Him/THEM he/they are INDEED BLESSED and UPON WHICH that which is GIVEN THEM (and IN them) Namely Christ, He would build His Church.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and UPON ((((THIS ROCK ))) added emphasis mine*( revelation of Jesus Christ) He would build his Church.

Christ IN THEM (God revealing HIS SON= THE ROCK) IN THEM through WHOM they would preach the gospel (as Paul shows) He would build His Church upon which foundation is upon APOSTLES (PLURAL) not singular. So the church is built upon THE FOUNDATION OF the apostles whose Chief cornerstone is Jesus Christ (through Whom they preached).


It is CLEAR that its UPON ~THIS~ (specific foundation) which was HIS CONFESSION of HIM (GIVEN TO ~THE THEM~) which was the QUESTION ~adressed to~ THE THEM was the ROCK which He was going to build his church upon (unless THE LORD builds the house they who labour do so in vain). The WORDS of the WISE (wise builders upon a ROCK= his sayings) are fastened as nails GIVEN by ONE SHEPHERD .

Their abilty to ACKNOWLEDGE Christ as the SON OF GOD was NOT of themselves but GIVEN of the FATHER. This (also) is in the context of the Lords question put forth to them, "WHO do MEN SAY that I AM"? This is now contrasted against "WHO do YOU say that I AM?" (their answer was not after man). What followed was The BLESSED are YOU (at this point) by Jesus. He acknowledges their ability to reccognize and confess Him and points out that Peter was ABLE TO SAY (which NO MAN can say) was NOT revealed by flesh and blood (or as Paul confirms, by man) but GIVEN THEM of the FATHER. Upon THIS ROCK He would build His church.

This is confirmed in the apostles PLURALITY and ONENESS with HIM. NO MAN can even SAY (speak, confirm acknowledge) Jesus as the LORD EXCEPT by the Holy Ghost (given of the Father). Peters confession was not of himself (it was in him). Jesus makes it clear His ability to recognize and SAY this was GIVEN HIM of the Father.

They were to bear HIS NAME = THE ROCK which was by the Spirit of TRUTH (given of the Father as our Lord CONFIRMS). NO MAN can even SAY Jesus is LORD EXCEPT by the Holy Spirit.

The STONE laid IN SION is Christ is First and Chief cornerstone OF THEM.

Ecc 12:11 The words of the wise are as goads, and ~as nails~ fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from ~one shepherd~.

WHO laid the CORNERSTONE thereof? Jesus confirms its THE FATHER to THEM and TO US.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations ~thereof~ fastened? or ~WHO~ laid the corner stone ~thereof~;

1Peter 2:6 ((( Behold ))) I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1Cr 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

To us who BELIEVE HE is PRECIOUS 1Peter 2:7 HE is the Stone the builders can in fact DISALLOW.

Water is from the SPIRITUAL ROCK (IN THEM) 1Cr 10:4. The ROCK in them is the same as Paul shows in accordance with the same, GOD revealed HIS SON (the Rock) IN HIM (revealed not by FLESH and BLOOD) nor BY MAN but by the REVELATION of JESUS CHRIST. It is BY HIM (GOD revealing HIS SON) IN PAUL SO THAT He MIGHT PREACH HIM


Nowhere is Peter FIRST as even he was brought to Christ himself and called "Cephas" a STONE before he had received a revelation of the Father.

John 1:42 he brought ~him / Simon~ ( a lively stone) to Jesus ( Living Stone ). And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Same thing Peter shows here (as it relates to ourselves) coming to Christ (in the same way)


1Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,

Confirming this very thing again (as He is our patern) calling us stones (as he himself is)

1Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up ~spiritual sacrifices~, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Key is "spiritual sacrifices" BY Jesus Christ, through whom the SPIRITUAL DRINK and SPIRITUAL MEAT comes which is THE SPIRITUAL ROCK and that ROCK IS CHRIST.

GOD revealed HIS SON (the ROCK) IN HIM (and them) SPECIFICALLY that Paul MIGHT PREACH HIM.

Christ is the POWER of God, its the reason why his gospel came NOT in word ONLY but IN POWER for its IN and THROUGH Christ (The POWER of God) as they SPAKE IN HIM there was power.

Those who received THEM received NOT THEIR WORD as it was the WORD OF MEN but AS it TRULY IS in TRUTH ~THE WORD OF GOD~. They bear HIS NAME (who is CALLED THE WORD OF GOD) THE ROCK (Whom WITHOUT) they could DO NOTHING. They could not FEED the multitudes without the one through Whom came the Spiritual (drink/living water) or spiritual MEAT that comes from THE ROCK.

Christ HAS the Keys and HE GIVES HIM (even the THEM of the foundation) they keys as the PREACHING of the word (was even in HIS SON) as HE was revelaed IN PAUL ~so that~ HE MIGHT PREACH HIM. Not in WORD ONLY but POWER = THATS CHRIST.

Peter confessed (what was BOTH GIVEN and RECEIVED) and was indeed IN HIM. The two are one in that respect. Just as HE is the LIGHT and WE are THE LIGHT. Just as HE is the BREAD and WE being MANY are ONE BREAD. Just as HE who has the KEYS gives the KEYS so likewise HE that IS the MORNING STAR GIVES the MORNING STAR as He MANIFESTS HIMSELF.


The Church is NOT built on PETER (singularly) its a doctrine made out of a single verse which stands corrrected in the foundation of their plurality (and confirms that in Peter was truly speaking to the THEM Jesus was ADRESSING). It is a secure immoveable massive Rock because what is given to him came not from Him but from the Father. Just as we are "receiving" an immovable Kingdom from and unmoveable Rock.

1Cr 12:3 no man ~can SAY~ that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.


WHO DO YOU SAY that I AM (contrasted against WHO MEN SAY HE IS)


Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Mat 16:17 Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

It was on THE ****BASIS**** of that confession (GIVEN of God, NOT of man, nor flesh and blood) which is CUT OUT of the picture...Jesus says to HIM

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and UPON (((( THIS ROCK )))) *of revelation* He would build his Church.

Shows the very same in Paul

Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son (THE ROCK) in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:


Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead


Who DO MEN say that I AM? Who DO YOU SAY that I AM? Which was GIVEN OF GOD (They BARE HIS NAME = THE ROCK) IN WHOM and THROUGH WHOM they PREACHED (as Paul confirms).

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: andthat Rock was Christ

It was NOT the word of MEN but GOD

1Thes 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it ~not~ as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

They SPAKE IN CHRIST

2Cr 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God ~speak we~ in Christ.


Gal 1:11 I certify you, brethren, that the gospel ~which was~ preached of me is not after man.
1Thes 1:5 For our gospel camenot ~unto you~ in word only, but also ~in power~, andin the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ~ye know~ what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

APOSTLES PLURAL (Not singular) as theres NO DIVISIONS between them even the Apostle Paul shows that.
1Cr 1:12-13 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and ~I of Cephas~; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


Ephes 2:20 And are ~built upon~ the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
It confirms Jesus was speaking to the THEM (who were answered for in Peter)



Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

They were NOT professing Peter (as high priest) or themselves but Christ (which affirms what Jesus shows concerning His own apostles).

Besides Paul was more of the Patern for those who believe hereafter



1Titus 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering,fora pattern to them which should hereafterbelieve on him to life everlasting.


Peters chair



Fireinfolding

 

[plmarquette]

the contention is ...
what God did with Aaron and his seed ... with the rulers of the congregation ; Jesus did with Peter & the church ...

protestants have elders , bishops, synods , and leaders of the denominations ... same deal ... analagous ...

both have made mistakes , both have placed words, whims, and doctrines of men into the church of God ...

so as Paul spoke by the Holy Spirit " forgetting what is behind ".... and as James said " what are you doing for Jesus now ?" ... what are your works of reconciliation , untiy , peace, love , mercy , and compassion ...

any one can walk in contention and strife ... few can swim upstream and work with all their christian brethren , rejoicing in commonality & unity in some tenatnts ... to feed the hungry , clothe the naked ...

 

[Trento]

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. But you will say, how comes it then that at Rome a presbyter is only ordained on the recommendation of a deacon? To which I reply as follows. Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception which has given rise to arrogance and pride?" -Jerome(Letter 146:1-2)

Let's look at the entire letter.

'The fool will talk folly.' I hear that someone has burst out into such madness as to prefer deacons before priests -- that is, before bishops. When the Apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops are the same, how can a server of tables and windows dare to exalt himself above those at whose prayer is made the Body and Blood of Christ? You ask my authority? Hear the proof." [He then quotes Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 4:14; 1 Peter 5; 2 John 1; 3 John 1; with comments and continues:] "As for the fact that one was afterwards elected to be set over the rest, this was done as a remedy for schism; lest each one should draw to himself the (net of the) Church of Christ, and so break it. Besides, at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius, the priests always took one of their own number, whom they elected, and placing him in a higher rank, called him bishop, as though an army should make a general, or deacons should elect one of themselves, whom they know to be a practical man, and call him arch-deacon. For what does a bishop do that a priest does not, except ordain? Nor is the Church of the city of Rome one thing, and the Church of all the rest of the world another. Gaul and Britain, and Africia, and Persia, and India, and all barbarian nations, adore one Christ and observe one rule of charity. If authority is looked for, the world is greater than the city.
"Wheresoever a bishop is -- whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the same worth, and also of the same priesthood (ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii). The power of riches and the lowliness of poverty do not make a bishop more exalted or more low. Besides, they are all the successors of the Apostles (ceterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt). But, you will say, how is it that at Rome a priest is ordained on the testimony of a deacon? Why do you produce the custom of one city [or of the city alone] ? Why do you put forward that small number from which pride has arisen against the laws of the Church? All rarities are more appreciated. Fleabane in India is more precious than pepper. The deacons are honored from their fewness, the priests are looked down upon because of their numbers. Besides, even in the Church of Rome the priests sit, and the deacons stand, although by gradual growth of abuses I have seen a deacon sit among the priests when the bishop was absent, and give his blessing to priests at private banquets. Let those who act thus learn that they do not rightly, and let them hear the Apostle," etc. (Ep. 146 ad Evangelum, vol I, 1081[1193])


How about this one too.

St. Jerome has been praising virginity, and exalting St. John above the other Apostles. He anticipates the objection:

"'But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter,' and replies: "Although the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is made solid upon them all equally, yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed. But why was not John, the virgin, elected? Deference was had to age, because Peter was older, in order that a young man -- almost a mere lad -- should not be preferred above men of advanced age, and that the good Master (whose duty it was to take away all cause of dispute from His disciples, and who had said to them: 'My peace I give you, My peace I leave unto you,' and Whoso among you wishes to be greater, let him be the least of all') might not seem to afford a ground for jealousy in appointing the young man whom He had loved." (C. Jovin. PL 23, vol II, 279[258])

In both of these passages we find the same theory of St. Jerome, that a head is necessary for prevention of divisions.
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Kephas = Petros
Kephas = Rock
Petros =/= Rock?

Maybe I am missing a simple twist of linguistics, but if Simon's name was changed to Kephas, which is Aramaic for Rock, are we going to now claim that Jesus didn't change his name to Rock? Are you using Bill Clinton's disctionary, the one where things don't really mean what they do?

That might be better than using the Roman catechism if Rome's translations/interpretations are questionable.

Luke 10:18 He said yet to them: "I beheld the Adverary, as a-bright-star/astraphn <796> out of the heaven, falling/pesonta <4098> (5631) ".

Reve 9:1 And the 5th messenger sounds a trumpet, and I perceive a Star/astera <792> out of the heaven, having fallen/peptwkota <4098>(5761) into/to the land[f], and was given to him the key[f] of the well/pit[n] of the Abyss[f], 2 and he opens up the well/pit of the abyss, and did ascend/anebh <305> smoke out of the well/pit, as smoke of great furnace,

796. astrape as-trap-ay' from 797; lightning; by analogy, glare:--lightning, bright shining.
797. astrapto as-trap'-to probably from 792; to flash as lightning:--lighten, shine.
792. aster as-tare' probably from the base of 4766; a star (as strown over the sky), literally or figuratively:--star.

 

[ScottBot]

That might be better than using the Roman catechism if Rome's translations/interpretations are questionable.

Luke 10:18 He said yet to them: "I beheld the Adverary, as a-bright-star/astraphn <796> out of the heaven, falling/pesonta <4098> (5631) ".

Reve 9:1 And the 5th messenger sounds a trumpet, and I perceive a Star/astera <792> out of the heaven, having fallen/peptwkota <4098>(5761) into/to the land[f], and was given to him the key[f] of the well/pit[n] of the Abyss[f], 2 and he opens up the well/pit of the abyss, and did ascend/anebh <305> smoke out of the well/pit, as smoke of great furnace,

796. astrape as-trap-ay' from 797; lightning; by analogy, glare:--lightning, bright shining.
797. astrapto as-trap'-to probably from 792; to flash as lightning:--lighten, shine.
792. aster as-tare' probably from the base of 4766; a star (as strown over the sky), literally or figuratively:--star.

Who said anything about Rome? Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah's name to Kephas (spelled alternatively Kepha, Cepha, or Cephas) which literally translates to Rock, not "Peter". "Peter" comes down through the ages from the Greek (Petros), but Jesus didn't speak with His apostles in Greek, He spoke in Aramaic the common language of 1st century Palestinian fisherman. We can go around and around the mill on this if we want, but to deny that Jesus called Simon "Rock" is to try to insert more into the Scriptures than actually exists.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Let's look at the entire letter.

'The fool will talk folly.' I hear that someone has burst out into such madness as to prefer deacons before priests -- that is, before bishops. When the Apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and bishops are the same, how can a server of tables and windows dare to exalt himself above those at whose prayer is made the Body and Blood of Christ? You ask my authority? Hear the proof." [He then quotes Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 4:14; 1 Peter 5; 2 John 1; 3 John 1; with comments and continues:] "As for the fact that one was afterwards elected to be set over the rest, this was done as a remedy for schism; lest each one should draw to himself the (net of the) Church of Christ, and so break it. Besides, at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius, the priests always took one of their own number, whom they elected, and placing him in a higher rank, called him bishop, as though an army should make a general, or deacons should elect one of themselves, whom they know to be a practical man, and call him arch-deacon. For what does a bishop do that a priest does not, except ordain? Nor is the Church of the city of Rome one thing, and the Church of all the rest of the world another. Gaul and Britain, and Africia, and Persia, and India, and all barbarian nations, adore one Christ and observe one rule of charity. If authority is looked for, the world is greater than the city.
"Wheresoever a bishop is -- whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, or at Alexandria, or at Tanis, he is of the same worth, and also of the same priesthood (ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii). The power of riches and the lowliness of poverty do not make a bishop more exalted or more low. Besides, they are all the successors of the Apostles (ceterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt). But, you will say, how is it that at Rome a priest is ordained on the testimony of a deacon? Why do you produce the custom of one city [or of the city alone] ? Why do you put forward that small number from which pride has arisen against the laws of the Church? All rarities are more appreciated. Fleabane in India is more precious than pepper. The deacons are honored from their fewness, the priests are looked down upon because of their numbers. Besides, even in the Church of Rome the priests sit, and the deacons stand, although by gradual growth of abuses I have seen a deacon sit among the priests when the bishop was absent, and give his blessing to priests at private banquets. Let those who act thus learn that they do not rightly, and let them hear the Apostle," etc. (Ep. 146 ad Evangelum, vol I, 1081[1193])


How about this one too.


St. Jerome has been praising virginity, and exalting St. John above the other Apostles. He anticipates the objection:

"'But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter,' and replies: "Although the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is made solid upon them all equally, yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed. But why was not John, the virgin, elected? Deference was had to age, because Peter was older, in order that a young man -- almost a mere lad -- should not be preferred above men of advanced age, and that the good Master (whose duty it was to take away all cause of dispute from His disciples, and who had said to them: 'My peace I give you, My peace I leave unto you,' and Whoso among you wishes to be greater, let him be the least of all') might not seem to afford a ground for jealousy in appointing the young man whom He had loved." (C. Jovin. PL 23, vol II, 279[258])​

In both of these passages we find the same theory of St. Jerome, that a head is necessary for prevention of divisions.​

Someone posted this link on the Church Fathers concerning the Rock here...

Untitled Document

I thought it was informative.

Fireinfolding

 

[IamAdopted]

Who said anything about Rome? Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah's name to Kephas (spelled alternatively Kepha, Cepha, or Cephas) which literally translates to Rock, not "Peter". "Peter" comes down through the ages from the Greek (Petros), but Jesus didn't speak with His apostles in Greek, He spoke in Aramaic the common language of 1st century Palestinian fisherman. We can go around and around the mill on this if we want, but to deny that Jesus called Simon "Rock" is to try to insert more into the Scriptures than actually exists.

This is not even a proven fact. He called Him Petros and what He built His church on Petra? Taking a word from the greek and putting it into Aaramiac you have to find out exactly what He was saying. Then translate it to Aaramiac. Other wise you change what Jesus was even Saying.

 

[sunlover1]

Someone posted this link on the Church Fathers concerning the Rock here...

Untitled Document

I thought it was informative.

Fireinfolding

Interesting.
I guess if were going to use guys'
interpretations might as well look at
all of them..
But it still makes more sense to me
to just look at the Scripture.
It's common sense that God wouldn't
build HIS church on any mere mortal,
no?


Cyril’s views are very similar to those of Chrysostom. He identifies the rock of the Church to be Peter’s confession of faith and not the person of Peter himself. He separates Peter’s faith from Peter’s person, just as Augustine, Chrysostom and Ambrose did. All of the apostles according to Cyril are Shepherds and foundations. It is their teaching on Christ which is foundational and points to Christ as the true rock and only foundation upon which the Church is built. He interprets the rock of Matthew 16 to be Christ as well as Peter’s confession of faith. This amounts to the same thing as Peter’s confession points to the person of Christ. Cyril’s views are completely antithetical to those of the Roman Catholic Church. He is no proponent of the teaching of papal primacy. Michael Winter summarizes Cyril’s views in the following statements:

 

[Fireinfolding]

Interesting.
I guess if were going to use guys'
interpretations might as well look at
all of them..
But it still makes more sense to me
to just look at the Scripture.
It's common sense that God wouldn't
build HIS church on any mere mortal,
no?


Cyril&#8217;s views are very similar to those of Chrysostom. He identifies the rock of the Church to be Peter&#8217;s confession of faith and not the person of Peter himself. He separates Peter&#8217;s faith from Peter&#8217;s person, just as Augustine, Chrysostom and Ambrose did. All of the apostles according to Cyril are Shepherds and foundations. It is their teaching on Christ which is foundational and points to Christ as the true rock and only foundation upon which the Church is built. He interprets the rock of Matthew 16 to be Christ as well as Peter&#8217;s confession of faith. This amounts to the same thing as Peter&#8217;s confession points to the person of Christ. Cyril&#8217;s views are completely antithetical to those of the Roman Catholic Church. He is no proponent of the teaching of papal primacy. Michael Winter summarizes Cyril&#8217;s views in the following statements:

I can see it in scripture beatifully, but I guess Ill dig into some of the church Fathers stuff

Not that I care to, I just figured to see what they say given everyone quotes them verses scripture.

Heres one from the same link



Though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock he does not mean it in a pro&#8211;papal sense. We know this because of other comments he has made. But if we isolate this one passage it would be easy to read a pro&#8211;Roman interpretation into it. However, in other comments on Matthew 16:18&#8211;19, Tertullian explains what he means when he says that Peter is the rock on which the Church would be built:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, &#8216;Upon this rock I will build My Church,&#8217; &#8216;to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;&#8217; or, &#8216;Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,&#8217; you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? &#8216;On thee,&#8217; He says, &#8216;will I build My church;&#8217; and, &#8216;I will give thee the keys&#8217;...and, &#8216;Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound&#8217;...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: &#8216;Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,&#8217; and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ&#8217;s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are &#8216;loosed&#8217; the sins that were beforetime &#8216;bound;&#8217; and those which have not been &#8216;loosed&#8217; are &#8216;bound,&#8217; in accordance with true salvation...[SIZE=-1](Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).[/SIZE]​

When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome. The patristic scholar, Karlfried Froehlich, states that even though Tertullian teaches that Peter is the rock he does not mean this in the same sense as the Roman Catholic Church:

&#8216;Tertullian regarded the Peter of Matthew 16:18&#8211;19 as the representative of the entire church or at least its &#8216;spiritual&#8217; members.&#8217; [SIZE=-1](Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, pp. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989)[/SIZE]​

It is a common practice of Roman Catholic apologists to omit part of the quotation given above by Tertullian in order to make it appear that he is a proponent of papal primacy. A prime example off this is found in a recently released Roman Catholic defense of the papacy entitled Jesus, Peter and the Keys. The authors give the following partial citation from Tertullian:

I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, &#8216;On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven&#8217; [Matt. 16:1819a] or &#8216;whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven&#8217; [Matt. 16:19b] that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed [SIZE=-1](Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1996), pp. 216-217).[/SIZE]​

When comparing this citation with the one given above it is clear that these authors have left out the last half of the quotation. The part of the quotation that is omitted defines what Tertullian means by the statement that Christ built his Church on Peter and invested him with authroity. Again, what he means by these words is that Christ built his church on Peter by building it through him as he preached the gospel. This is a meaning that is clearly contrary to the Roman Catholic perspective. To omit this is to distort the teaching of Tertullian and to give the impression that he taught something he did not teach. So, though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock, he does not mean this in the same way the Roman Catholic Church does. Peter is the rock because he is the one given the privilege of being the first to open the kingdom of God to men. This is similar to the view expressed by Maximus of Tours when he says: &#8216;For he is called a rock because he was the first to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations' [SIZE=-1](Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman, 1989), The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, Sermon 77.1, p. 187).[/SIZE]

Not only do we see a clear denial of any belief in a papal primacy in Tertullian&#8217;s exegesis of Matthew 16, but such a denial is also seen from his practice. In his later years Tertullian separated himself from the Catholic Church to become a Montanist. He clearly did not hold to the view espoused by Vatican I that communion with the Bishop of Rome was the ultimate criterion of orthodoxy and of inclusiveness in the Church of God.

Theres a bunch of them there.

Fireinfolding

 

[Fireinfolding]

[SIZE=+1]Heres another one[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]ORIGEN(A.D. 185&#8212;253/254)[/SIZE]

Origen was head of the catechetical school at Alexandria during the first half of the third century. He was an individual of enormous intellect and was by far the most prolific writer of the patristic age. Eusebius states that his writings numbered in the neighborhood of six thousand. He has been called the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity. He had immense influence upon fathers in both the East and West in subsequent centuries. Origen is the first father to give a detailed exposition of the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:18. His interpretation became normative for the Eastern fathers and for many in the West. Apart from the specific passage of Matthew 16 he states that Peter is the rock:

Look at the great foundation of that Church and at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: &#8216;Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?' [SIZE=-1](Exodus, Homily 5.4. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelaiter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), p. 100).[/SIZE]
​

But, like Tertullian, he does not mean this in the Roman Catholic sense. Often, Origen is cited as a proponent of papal primacy because he says that Peter is the rock. Quotes such as the one given above are isolated from his other statements about Peter and his actual interpretation of Matthew 16:18 thereby inferring that he taught something which he did not teach. In his mind Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments:

And if we too have said like Peter, &#8216;Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,&#8217; not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, &#8216;Thou art Peter,&#8217; etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, &#8216;The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,&#8217; hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, &#8216;Upon this rock I will build My Church?&#8217; Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, &#8216;I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,&#8217; be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
&#8216;Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.&#8217; If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname &#8216;rock&#8217; who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, &#8216;Thou art Peter&#8217; etc., down to the words, &#8216;prevail against it.&#8217; But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock [SIZE=-1](Allan Menzies, Ante&#8211;Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).[/SIZE]
​

This is one of the most important passages in all the writings of Origen for an understanding of his view of the rock of Matthew 16. Yet this passage is is not included in those referenced by the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This is a glaring omission given the importance of the passage and the fact that it is easily accessible in the work the Ante-Nicene Fathers. One can only conclude that the authors purposefully omitted the passage because it is antithetical to the position they are seeking establish.

John Meyendorff was a world renowned and highly respected Orthodox theologian, historian and patristics scholar. He was dean of St. Vladimir&#8217;s Orthodox Theological Seminary and Professor of Church History and Patristics. He gives the following explanation of Origen&#8217;s interpretation and of his influence on subsequent fathers in the East and West:

Origen, the common source of patristic exegetical tradition, commenting on Matthew 16:18, interprets the famous logion as Jesus&#8217; answer to Peter&#8217;s confession: Simon became the &#8216;rock&#8217; on which the Church is founded because he expressed the true belief in the divinity of Christ. Origen continues: &#8216;If we also say &#8220;Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,&#8221; then we also become Peter...for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?&#8217; According to Origen, therefore, Peter is no more than the first &#8216;believer,&#8217; and the keys he received opened the gates of heaven to him alone: if others want to follow, they can &#8216;imitate&#8217; Peter and receive the same keys. Thus the words of Christ have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Caesarea Philippi. In the whole body of patristic exegesis, this is the prevailing understanding of the &#8216;Petrie&#8217; logia, and it remains valid in Byzantine literature...Thus, when he spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organizing the Church as guardian of the faith [SIZE=-1](John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham, 1974), pp. 97-98).[/SIZE]
​

James McCue in Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue affirms these views of Origen in these statements:

When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18f, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be...(His) is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18f. and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church [SIZE=-1](Paul Empie and Austin Murphy, Ed., Papal Primacy in the Universal Church[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 60-61).[/SIZE]
​

Origen and Tertullian are the first fathers, from the East and West respectively, to give an exposition on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16 and the role and position of Peter. Their views are foundational for the interpretation of this important passage for the centuries following. Strands of their teaching will appear in the views of the fathers throughout the East and West. It is important to point out that the first Eastern and Western fathers to give an exegesis of Matthew 16 do not interpret the passage in a pro&#8211;Roman sense.


Hey these guys arent so bad LOL

Fireinfolding

 

[Fireinfolding]

[SIZE=+1]Heres another one[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]EUSEBIUS[/SIZE]
Eusebius was born in Caesarea in Palestine around the year 263 A.D. He took the name Eusebius Pamphilus after his mentor and teacher Pamphilus. He was consecrated bishop of Caesarea in 313 A.D. and was a participant at the Council of Nicaea. He is known as the father of ecclesiastical history for his work on the history of the Church. He has very clearly expressed his views on the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:

&#8216;And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils&#8217; (Ps. 18.14)...By &#8216;the foundations of the world,&#8217; we shall understand the strength of God&#8217;s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded&#8212;a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that &#8216;the world&#8217; is actually the Church of God, and that its &#8216;foundation&#8217; is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: &#8216;Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it&#8217;; and elsewhere: &#8216;The rock, moreover, was Christ.&#8217; For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: &#8216;No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.&#8217; Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: &#8216;Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.&#8217; These foundations of the world have been laid bare because the enemies of God, who once darkened the eyes of our mind, lest we gaze upon divine things, have been routed and put to flight&#8212;scattered by the arrows sent from God and put to flight by the rebuke of the Lord and by the blast from his nostrils. As a result, having been saved from these enemies and having received the use of our eyes, we have seen the channels of the sea and have looked upon the foundations of the world. This has happened in our lifetime in many parts of the world [SIZE=-1](Commentary on the Psalms, M.P.G., Vol. 23, Col. 173, 176).[/SIZE]
​

Eusebius unambiguously teaches that the rock is Christ. He correlates this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 10:4 and 3:11. He goes on to say that there is a subsidiary foundation, from Ephesians 2:20, of the apostles and prophets, the Church also built upon them, but the cornerstone is Christ. However he interprets this to mean that the Church is to be built upon the words or teachings of the apostles and prophets as opposed to their persons. It is in this sense that it can be said that the Church is built upon Peter and the other apostles. It is clear that Christ alone is the true foundation and rock of the Church and that Eusebius sees no peculiar Petrine primacy associated with Christ&#8217;s statements in Matthew 16. Peter is simply one of a number of the apostles who is a foundation of the Church. This has nothing to do with his person, but everything to do with his words&#8212;his confession. This helps us to properly understand other references of Eusebius to Peter. For example, when he says: &#8216;But Peter, upon whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one epistle undisputed,&#8217; [SIZE=-1](Ecclesiastical History II.XXV (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), p. 246), [/SIZE]he does not mean that Christ established a papal office in Peter and that the Church is built upon him in a personal sense and through him upon his supposed successors. The Church is built upon Peter by being built upon his confession of faith. In light of his comments from his Commentary on the Psalms we can conclude that Eusebius did not interpret Matthew 16:18 in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. It is Christ and Christ alone that fills Eusebius&#8217; vision from this passage. However, one will search in vain for the above quotation from Eusebius in the Roman Catholic work Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This work purports to give a definitive patristic perspective on the rock of Matthew 16. But the failure to give a full documentation of what this father has actually written on the subject once again leaves the authors open to the charge of a biased and manipulative presentation of the facts.

The interpretation of Eusebius, along with that of Origen, had an immense influence upon the Eastern and Western fathers. Over and over again, as we will see, we find the fathers of subsequent generations interpreting this rock passage with the focus on the person of Christ. The corresponding passages of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4 are used as justification for the interpretation. Michael Winter describes Eusebius&#8217; point of view and influence:

In the Ecclesiastical History he says without any explanation or qualification: &#8216;Peter upon whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...&#8217; Elsewhere he speaks of Christ as the foundation of the church in such a way as to exclude St. Peter. For instance in his commentary on the Psalms the reference to the foundation of the earth in Psalm 17 leads him to consider the foundation of the church. Using Matthew 16, he declares that this foundation is a rock, which is then identified as Christ on authority of 1 Cor. 10:4. This interpretation of the text of Matthew which seems so strange to the modern reader indicates a problem which perplexed quite a number of the early fathers. Their theology of the church was, thanks to Paul, so thoroughly Christocentric that it was difficult for them to envisage a foundation other than Christ...The third opinion which Eusebius put forward was an interpretation of Matthew 16 which envisaged the rock of the church neither as Christ nor precisely Peter himself, but as the faith which he manifested in his acknowledgment of Christ. This latter view of Eusebius, together with his other innovation, namely that the rock was Christ, had considerable influence on the later exegesis of the text in question, both in the Eastern and Western church [SIZE=-1](Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), p. 53).[/SIZE]

Again from the link posted

Fireinfolding
​

 

[Trento]

Interesting.
I guess if were going to use guys'
interpretations might as well look at
all of them..
But it still makes more sense to me
to just look at the Scripture.
It's common sense that God wouldn't
build HIS church on any mere mortal,
no?


Cyril’s views are very similar to those of Chrysostom. He identifies the rock of the Church to be Peter’s confession of faith and not the person of Peter himself. He separates Peter’s faith from Peter’s person, just as Augustine, Chrysostom and Ambrose did. All of the apostles according to Cyril are Shepherds and foundations. It is their teaching on Christ which is foundational and points to Christ as the true rock and only foundation upon which the Church is built. He interprets the rock of Matthew 16 to be Christ as well as Peter’s confession of faith. This amounts to the same thing as Peter’s confession points to the person of Christ. Cyril’s views are completely antithetical to those of the Roman Catholic Church. He is no proponent of the teaching of papal primacy. Michael Winter summarizes Cyril’s views in the following statements:

After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: 'Peter lovest thou Me more than these?'" (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])

"He saith to him, 'Feed My sheep.' Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep." (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])


As if St. Chrysostom was prescient of some future critic who would wish to explain that any of the apostles might be said to preside over the brethren, and that what is said to Peter as head of the choir is meant for all, he adds further on:

"If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world."
​

 

[Guineverelyndy]

Aren't there already enough threads on this topic to make one want to, you know, post about something else?!