Bishop of Antioch

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmy85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimmy85

Guest
I was reading the list of bishops of Antioch in wikipedia, they mention that the apostole Peter was the first bishop of Antioch

list of the bishops of Antioch

Patriarchs of Antioch:

Peter the Apostle (37-53)
Evodius (53-68)
Ignatius (68-107)
Heron (107-127)
Cornelius (127-154)
Eros (154-169)
Theophilus (169-182)
…

I dunno but it sounds nonsense, because st Igantious of Antioch was the well know disciple of the Apostole John, and not the disciple of Peter.

and I dotn remeber that Eusebios of Cesarea mentioned in his book “the history of the church” as Peter being the bishop of Antioch.

They mention that afterwards he departed to Rome.
then Did Peter was the bishop of Antioch, or does wikipedia is distorting the facts?
 
Peter was the first Bishop. This is instructed in the Bible (Matthew 16)

Matthew 16:18 kagw <2504> de <1161> {AND I ALSO} soi <4671> {TO THEE} legw <3004> (5719) {SAY,} oti <3754> {THAT} su <4771> {THOU} ei <1488> (5748) {ART} ** petroV <4074> {PETER,**} kai <2532> {AND} epi <1909> {ON} tauth <3778> th <3588> {THIS} petra <4073> {ROCK} oikodomhsw <3618> (5692) {I WILL BUILD} mou <3450> thn <3588> {MY} ekklhsian <1577> {ASSEMBLY,} kai <2532> {AND} pulai <4439> {GATES} adou <86> ou <3756> {OF HADES} katiscusousin <2729> (5692) {SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST} authV <846> {IT.}

Petro was the name of Peter in Greek. It means Rock. Petra too means rock, but in a different form. Sort of like in spanish you have hermano hermana, or in the Semetical languages… It’s common to have a such in most languages(except English lol)

Petra comes from Petro, and vice versa
4073 petra {pet’-ra}
from the same as 4074; TDNT - 6:95,834; n f
AV - rock 16; 16
  1. a rock, cliff or ledge
    1a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
    1b) a rock, a large stone
    1c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and
    strength of soul
So Jesus is saying that Upon PETER He will build the Church.

But anyways, to answer your question lol -
I think we need to recognize the fact that Peter was not a Bishop for all that long. And we have to recognize that John lived for a very, very long time. Contrary to the other Disciples, John lived a long, productive life.

So, I think when we look at the timing, it pretty much explains it all 🙂

I know my explanation was a little whack, but I hope it answers you!
 
St. Paul indicates that Peter (“Cephas”) was in Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14.

In Book 3, Chapter 36, of his History of the Church, Eusebius says, “…Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.”
 
jimmy85 said:
I was reading the list of bishops of Antioch in wikipedia, they mention that the apostole Peter was the first bishop of Antioch

list of the bishops of Antioch

Patriarchs of Antioch:

Peter the Apostle (37-53)
Evodius (53-68)
Ignatius (68-107)
Heron (107-127)
Cornelius (127-154)
Eros (154-169)
Theophilus (169-182)
…

I dunno but it sounds nonsense, because st Igantious of Antioch was the well know disciple of the Apostole John, and not the disciple of Peter.

and I dotn remeber that Eusebios of Cesarea mentioned in his book “the history of the church” as Peter being the bishop of Antioch.

They mention that afterwards he departed to Rome.
then Did Peter was the bishop of Antioch, or does wikipedia is distorting the facts?
Click to expand...
**Clement was a disciple of Peter and Paul.

Polycarp was a disciple of John.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Peter and John.**
 
thistle said:
**Clement was a disciple of Peter and Paul.

Polycarp was a disciple of John.

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of Peter and John.**
Click to expand...
ok thanks
So Peter and Paul established the church in Rome. thats the reason why some ancient writters claimed that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and some dont.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top