Petra and Petros...?

[Marybeloved]

ello, CavaradossiH

In the East, the 70 (sometimes 72, it depends on the bible you are using) Disciples are usually known as the 70 Apostles. Barnabas, Luke the Evangelist, Mark the Evangelist, Philip the Evangelist, St. Stephen (the first martyr), Timothy and Titus are all famous members of the 70/72 Disciples/Apostles.

A reference to the 70 Apostles can be found in Luke 10:

I don’t see anywhere in that scripture where the 70 are called Apostles.

 

[Cavaradossi]

ello, CavaradossiHI don’t see anywhere in that scripture where the 70 are called Apostles.

That’s just the name that they are given by tradition in the East. In the West, they are traditionally known as the seventy disciples. As we all know, something doesn’t have to be scriptural for it to be true. Tradition too is a source of truth.

 

[Marybeloved]

That’s just the name that they are given by tradition in the East. In the West, they are traditionally known as the seventy disciples. As we all know, something doesn’t have to be scriptural for it to be true. Tradition too is a source of truth.

You’re right about that. But even so, if the East calls them Apostles it certainly can not be in the same sense that the twelve were were Apostles or even St. Paul- In that regard, then you’re right that it’s just a name- it cannot mean exactly the same thing as it does with reference to Sts Petere, James, John, Bartholomew etc all the way to St. John who dies last and St. Paul who was added to them by divine prerogative.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In his epistle James refers himself not as “brother of the Lord” but as a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (see James 1:1).

The point is James plays an important role in the early Church especially being a pillar of the Jerusalem Church, from which Peter began to evangelize immediately after pentecost before any Church existed in Jerusalem.

It is from this James that the Church reveals her identity as Judeo/Christian for this great reflection is attributed to this James the lesser. What I love most of this James is his relentless exultation to the holiness and virginity of Mary.

This James is not the only one who writes a “Catholic epistle” in fact the last five epistles in the new testament are addressed to the “Catholic Church”.

What is fascinating about this James theology and Pauls theology appears to be in direct contradiction on the surface. James “faith apart from works is dead” compared to Pauls teaching “we are justified by faith”. The Church although correctly interprets these teaching as completing each other, thanks to Peter who explains that Pauls letters can be difficult to interpret, that’s why we need the Church to interpret these hard to understand teachings.

I agree James played a very important role in the infant Church, no one is doubting this one bit. All the apostles role was very significant to the growth of the Church.

BTW >>>

Paul’s ministry was evangelizing the Gentiles and all others in between including Jews and staying alive to complete his race. Peter’s role begins at replacing Judas with another disciple “Mathias”, then preaching to all the Jews in Jerusalem and baptizing the thousands there. Peter is recorded hearing from heaven, binding and loosing “Ananias” before the church, raising the dead, healing the sick and Paul visits with Peter alone to confer his vocation from Jesus and teachings to be from God, when James and all other Jews feared Paul a persecutor of the church.

Jesus named Simon bar Jona “Kephas” aramaic for Rock, Paul writing in Greek calls Peter “Cephas”. The latins record Peter as Petros because it is a masculine noun meaning “small pebble”, when “Petra” means massive rock but does relates to a feminine noun which the latins did not take to too well because Peter= Kephas= (Gk) Cephas was a large man.

I believe for one to have submissiveness to the other misses the point in Catholicism. Peter never equates his authority to be one to submit to, this is unreasonable Christian teaching. Both Peter and Paul were martyred for their faith.

Jesus never called Paul because if his faith. Jesus never calls Peter from his faith, Jesus makes Peter from Simon Bar Jona’s profession of faith to build His Church upon.

to be cont;

Nice post, and right the epistle of James came up often with Luther do to the “faith apart from works is dead” issue also.

I assumed the St James was Christs brother would arrive at some point also.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Disciple” means learn or “discipline”.

“Apostle” means one who is sent out.

Four Gospels it is most especially applied to the Apostles, sometimes styled the “twelve disciples” (Matthew 10:1; 11:1; 20:17; 26:20; 28:16, having reference to events subsequent to Christ’s Passion, mentions only the “eleven disciples”), sometimes merely called “the disciples” (Matthew 14:19; 15:33, 36; etc.). The expression “his disciples” frequently has the same import. Occasionally the Evangelists give the word a broader sense and make it a synonym for believer (Matthew 10:42; 27:57; John 4:1; 9:27, 28; etc.). Besides the signification of “Apostle” and that of “believer” there is finally a third one, found in St. Luke, and perhaps also in the other Evangelists. St. Luke narrates (6:13) that Jesus “called unto him his disciples, and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles)”. The disciples, in this disciples, in this context, are not the crowds of believers who flocked around Christ, but a smaller body of His followers. They are commonly identified with the seventy-two (seventy, according to the received Greek text, although several Greek manuscripts mention seventy-two, as does the Vulgate) referred to (Luke 10:1) as having been chosen by Jesus. The names of these disciples are given in several lists (Chronicon Paschale, and Pseudo-Dorotheus in Migne, P.G., XCII, 521-524; 543-545; 1061-1065); but these lists are unfortunately worthless. Eusebius positively asserts that no such roll existed in his time, and mentions among the disciples only Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Matthias, Thaddeus and James “the Lord’s brother” (Church History I.12). In the Acts of the Apostles the name disciple is exclusively used to designate the converts, the believers, both men and women (6:1, 2, 7; 9:1, 10, 19; etc.; in reference to the latter connotation see in particular 9:36) even such as were only imperfectly instructed, like those found by St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5).

New Advent.

We know of the twelve Apostles. Some might argue that the 72 disciples who were sent out to preach by Jesus were also Apostles, but they were not part of the inner circle of twelve. Whom proceeded through Apostolic Succession?

In addition to the twelve, there were a lot of others. Some were just followers who tagged along learning and discerning. Others were very practical members of the ministry. Women played particular roles. Look at Mary M, its also often said the Blessed Mother and St Joseph were the first disciples of Jesus Christ. Since in truth they spent 30-years with the Lord as opposed to those who came to him in 3-quick years. However those Twelve were specifically chosen, and from the begining, no different than the Blessed Mother. And the infanite doesn’t stop as we see in Revelations and John’s prophecy.

It is the Lord who lives through you, thus your body becomes the Temple of the Lord…or Disciple!

Matthew 10:1, “He gave them power over unclean spirits so as to expel them, and to heal every disease and every illness”. Who is the “them”? The Twelve Apostles.

(Mark 6:7-13; Matthew 10:5-15; Luke 9:1-5). Jesus sends the Twelve to preach the kingdom and to heal, and gives them very definite instructions. From all this it results that the Apostles are to be with Jesus and to aid Him by proclaiming the kingdom and by healing.

It is not difficult to understand that Jesus did not indicate to His Apostles the whole extent of their mission, while as yet they had such imperfect ideas of His own person and mission, and of the Messianic kingdom. The nature of the Apostolic mission is made still clearer by the sayings of Christ after His Resurrection. Here such passages as Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 24:46-49; Acts 1:8, 21-22 are fundamental. In the first of these texts we read, “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all I have commanded you”.

The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles written by the Apostles exhibit them in the constant exercise of this office. Everywhere the Apostle governs the disciples, preaches the doctrines of Jesus as an authentic witness, and administers the sacred rites. In order to fill such an office, it seems necessary to have been instructed by Jesus, to have seen the risen Lord. And these are, clearly, the conditions required by the Apostles in the candidate for the place of Judas Iscariot. “Of the men, therefore, who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day He was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of His Resurrection” (Acts 1:21-22). It is further strengthened by an objection made to St.Paul: because he was called in an extraordinary way to the Apostolate, he was obliged often to vindicate his Apostolic authority and proclaim that he had seen the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1). Instruction and appointment by Jesus were, therefore, the regular conditions for the Apostolate

New-Advent

We can’t forget this were also human men. So the context of difference between each other has to be viewed as such.

Again it is not difficult to understand that Jesus did not indicate to His Apostles the whole extent of their mission, while as yet they had such imperfect ideas of His own person and mission, and of the Messianic kingdom, human beings.

This thinking comes to mind immediately with St Peter, when the Lord states “Get behind me satan”. St Peter is viewing Christ here as a human man, a personal friend, not as God, are thus St Peter isn’t seeing the infanite, only the human which he can’t comprehend losing. Or when St Peter draws his sword to fight at Judas betrayal.

Same in the flow of context dialogue with St Peter and St Paul. One has to really place themselve for example in St Pauls situation, not easy, even for a genius.

cont.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The authority of the Apostles proceeds from the office imposed upon them by Our Lord and is based on the very explicit sayings of Christ Himself. He will be with them all days to the end of ages (Matthew 28:20), give a sanction to their preaching (Mark 16:16), send them the “promise of the Father”, “virtue from above” (Luke 24:49). The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of the New Testament show us the exercise of this authority. The Apostle makes laws (Acts 15:29; 1 Corinthians 7:12 sq.), teaches (Acts 2:37 and following), claims for his teaching that it should be received as the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), punishes (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5), administers the sacred rites (Acts 6:1 sq.; 16:33; 20:11), provides successors (2 Timothy 1:6; Acts 14:22). In the modern theological terms the Apostle, besides the power of order, has a general power of jurisdiction and magisterium (teaching). The former embraces the power of making laws judging on religious matters, and enforcing obligations by means of suitable penalties. The latter includes the power of setting forth with authority Christ’s doctrine. It is necessary to add here that an Apostle could receive new revealed truths in order to propose them to the Church. This, however, is something wholly personal to the Apostles. (See REVELATION; INSPIRATION.)

Catholic theologians rightly speak in their treatises of some personal prerogatives of the Apostles; a brief account of them may not be superfluous.

A first prerogative, not clearly inferred from the texts of the New Testament nor demonstrated by solid reasons, is their confirmation in grace. Most modern theologians admit that the Apostles received so abundant an infusion of grace that they could avoid every mortal fault and every fully deliberate venial sin.
Another personal prerogative is the universality of their jurisdiction. The words of the Gospel on Apostolic office are very general; for the most part, the Apostles preached and travelled as if they were not bound by territorial limits, as we read in the Acts and the Epistles. This did not hinder the Apostles from taking practical measures to properly organize the preaching of the Gospel in the various countries they visited.
Among these prerogatives is reckoned personal infallibility, of course in matters of faith and morals, and only when they taught and imposed some doctrine as obligatory. In other matters they could err, as Peter, in the question of practical intercourse with the converted heathens; they might also accept certain current opinions, as Paul seems to have done with regard to the time of the Parousia, or Second Coming of the Lord. (See JESUS CHRIST.) It is not easy to find a stringent scripturistic demonstration for this prerogative, but reasonable arguments suggest it, e.g. the impossibility for all his hearers to verify and try the doctrine preached to them by an Apostle.

Apostolate and episcopate
Since the authority with which the Lord endowed the Apostles was given them for the entire Church it is natural that this authority should endure after their death, in other words, pass to successors established by the Apostles. In the oldest Christian documents concerning the primitive Churches we find ministers established, some of them, at least, by the usual rite of the imposition of hands. They bear various names: priests (presbyteroi, Acts 11:30; 14:22; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5); bishops (episkopoi, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7); presidents (proistamenoi, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Romans 12, etc.); heads (hegoumenoi, Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24, etc.); shepherds (poimenes, Ephesians 4:11); teachers (didaskaloi, Acts 13:1; 1 Corinthians 12:28 sq. etc.); prophets (prophetai, Acts 13:1; 15:32; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29, etc.), and some others. Besides them, there are Apostolic delegates, such as Timothy and Titus. The most frequent terms are priests and bishops; they were destined to become the technical names for the “authorities” of the Christian community. The authority of the bishop is different from the authority of priests, as is evident on every page of the letters of the martyr Ignatius of Antioch. The bishop–and there is but one in each town–governs his church, appoints priests who have a subordinate rank to him, and are, as it were, his counsellors, presides over the Eucharistic assemblies, teaches his people, etc. He has, therefore, a general power of governing and teaching, quite the same as the modern Catholic bishop; this power is substantially identical with the general authority of the Apostles, without, however, the personal prerogatives ascribed to the latter. St. Ignatius of Antioch declares that this ministry holds legitimately its authority from God through Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians, i). Clement of Rome, in his Letter; to the Church of Corinth (about 96), defends with energy the legitimacy of the ministry of bishops and, priests, and proclaims that the Apostles established successors to govern the churches (xlii-xliv). We may conclude with confidence that, about the end of the second century, the ministers of the churches were everywhere regarded as legitimate successors of the Apostles; this common persuasion is of primary importance.

(New Advent) btw sorry I’m using Yahoo on this particular comp. or I would have just posted the two links.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Another and more difficult question arises as to the Acts and in the Epistles, (priests and bishops).

Some authors (and this is the traditional view) contend that the episkopoi of Apostolic times have the same dignity as the bishops of later times, and that the episkopoi of the apostolic writings are the same as the priests of the second century. This opinion, however, must give way before the evident identity of bishop and priest in Acts 20:17 and 28, Titus, i, 5-7, Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth, xliv.
Another view recognizing this synonymous character estimates that these officers whom we shall call bishops–priests had never the supreme direction of the churches in Apostolic times; this power, it is maintained, was exercised by the Apostles, the Prophets who travelled from one church to another, and by certain Apostolic delegates like Timothy. These alone were the real predecessors of the bishops of the second century; the bishop priests were the same as our modern priests, and had not the plenitude of the priesthood. This opinion is fully discussed and proposed with much learning by A. Michiels (L’origine de l’épiscopat, Louvain, 1900).
Mgr. Batiffol (Rev. bibl., 1895, and Etudes d’hist. et de théol. positive, I, Paris, 1903) expresses the following opinion: In the primitive churches there were (1) some preparatory functions, as the dignity of Apostles and Prophets; (2) some presbyteroi had no liturgical function, but only an honourable title; (3) the episkopoi, several in each community, had a liturgical function with the office to preach; (4) when the Apostles disappeared, the bishopric was divided: one of the bishops became sovereign bishop, while the others were subordinated to him: these were the later priests. This secondary priesthood is a diminished participation of the one and sole primitive priesthood; there is, therefore, no strict difference of order between the bishop and the priest.
Whatever may be the solution of this difficult question (see BISHOP, PRIEST), it remains certain that in the second century the general Apostolic authority belonged, by a succession universally acknowledged as legitimate, to the bishops of the Christian churches. (See APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.) The bishops have, therefore, a general power of order, jurisdiction, and magisterium, but not the personal prerogatives of the Apostles.

(New Advent)

Peace

 

[JohnVIII]

Nowhere are the 70 called Apostles in any capacity- we can’t just keep make stuff up to fit our theologies, John. Is their any reference for calling the 70 Apostles?

Luke 10:1, “And after these things, the Lord did appoint also other seventy, and sent them by twos before his face, to every city and place whither he himself was about to come.” Apostle is “apostolos” meaning “commissioner” The word “sent” in this verse is “apesteilen” meaning “He-commissions”. Several early teachers in the Church refereed to these 70 as apostles. Tradition says that there were actually 72 of them. Take a look at this link to an Orthodox web page showing the Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles. This Orthodox Web page has a list of the 70 apostles and it has St James first on the list to be commemorated. You may note also that #39 on the list of the Seventy is Linus, bishop of Rome. I’m sure this list comes from the list that Hippolytus of Rome made in a book that he wrote that was titled, “On the Seventy Apostles of Christ”.

The idea that James was the first of the Seventy just as Peter was first of the Twelve fits the verse by Paul very well!

“He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve [Cephas was one of the Twelve, the first]. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles [James was one of the Seventy, the first].”

God grants us peace!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The whole thing sounds pretty Jewish to me. If it is a vision of whole Church, or some such thing, then why just the 12 apostles, why was Paul left out?

Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28) - Has Rome ever said which one of the 12 tribes St Peter will judge when he sits on his throne in Rome? I would truly love to know!

Interesting; Moses will judge Old Israel, those who rejected the corner stone Jesus, when they went back to their former way of life by rejecting Jesus bread of life discourse Jn 6.

Their is no throne in Rome, this secular thinking has no position in the church, for this adds to the schism pretenses which do not exist in the Catholic Church.

Their is only one throne in heaven to which the new Israel journeys. These 12 judge the 12 =universal= Catholic church to include every tongue,nation and people to welcome all into the body of Christ, judgement is made from those who reject the revelations of Christ by the ones whom Jesus has sent “apostles” to bind and loose on earth.

In the resurrection it is revealed 144000 from the tribes of Israel will be saved Rev. 7:4 followed by Rev. 7:9 a great multitude which no man could number, from every NATION, from ALL TRIBES and PEOPLES and TONGUES, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes…

Here is Peter judging the tribes on earth as commanded by Jesus, not from what Rome never records but what the Scriptures reveal in the book of Acts;

Acts 5: 3 But** Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? ** 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? **You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” **5 When Ananias heard these words, **he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. **

8** Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.”
9 Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last.** When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11 **And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. **

What follows this biblical scene is Peter raising the dead Tabitha. Peter was not one to mess with when it came to the Whole church. You can ask the Conquerer Atilla the Hun who faced a defenseless Pope Leo the Great and retreated in great fear and died later.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Nice post, and right the epistle of James came up often with Luther do to the “faith apart from works is dead” issue also.

I assumed the St James was Christs brother would arrive at some point also.

Peace

Thank you GaryTaylor

Jesus had many brothers and sisters when placed in the perfect biblical context revealing a Hebrew understanding with Semitic living traditions, that all members belonging to any one Tribe “Judah” in Jesus case are all considered brothers and sisters. James the lesser was from these tribes belonging to Jesus, thus James the lesser is a “brother of the Lord” by first century biblical Semitic understanding and practice not protestant understanding which does not exist in first century biblical exegisis.

Peace be with you

 

[JohnVIII]

The authority of The Twelve Apostles is different, but equivalent, to that of The Seventy Apostles, just as one of the 12 Apostles is different than that of a bishop. I’m not going to try to detail those differences, but I wish to only make one point. All the bishops of the Church became the successors to all of the apostles of the Church. And most, if not ALL, of the first bishops of See’s established by the Apostles were chosen from the 70 Apostles. Isn’t it fair to say that all the bishops together as a body have universal authority over the Church just as all the apostles as a body had universal authority over the Church? Now, if St Peter had universal authority because he was first of the 12, wouldn’t it make perfectly good sense to say that St James likewise had universal authority because he was first of all bishops and/or first of the 70?

:tiphat:

 

[Marybeloved]

The authority of The Twelve Apostles is different, but equivalent, to that of The Seventy Apostles, just as one of the 12 Apostles is different than that of a bishop. I’m not going to try to detail those differences, but I wish to only make one point. All the bishops of the Church became the successors to all of the apostles of the Church. And most, if not ALL, of the first bishops of See’s established by the Apostles were chosen from the 70 Apostles. Isn’t it fair to say that all the bishops together as a body have universal authority over the Church just as all the apostles as a body had universal authority over the Church? Now, if St Peter had universal authority because he was first of the 12, wouldn’t it make perfectly good sense to say that St James likewise had universal authority because he was first of all bishops and/or first of the 70?

:tiphat:

The twelve’s authority certainly was not equivalent to anyone else- They were instruments of divine revelation. It’s by virtue of that fact that each of their jurisdiction as an Apostle was universal. St. Peter’s universal authority as head came from Christ. St. James was not first Bishop. He was the first Bishop of Jerusalem and his authority as Bishop lay in Jerusalem, not the whole church. As an Apostle, his authority was universal.

 

[JohnVIII]

The twelve’s authority certainly was not equivalent to anyone else- They were instruments of divine revelation. It’s by virtue of that fact that each of their jurisdiction as an Apostle was universal. St. Peter’s universal authority as head came from Christ. St. James was not first Bishop. He was the first Bishop of Jerusalem and his authority as Bishop lay in Jerusalem, not the whole church. As an Apostle, his authority was universal.

If James wasn’t the first bishop then do you know who was? Was there a See before the See of Jerusalem? If so then are the Orthodox wrong in referring to Jerusalem as “the Mother Church”, meaning the first church? If there was another See before Jerusalem then the bishop of that See was the first bishop. Was it perhaps a church located in Samaria?

Also, you said “As an Apostle, his authority was universal”, was you referring to James, the bishop of Jerusalem? Because of other things you said I don’t understand why you would end by saying that. There are a few who have speculated that James was James the son of Alphaeus which was one of the 12. I, of course, do not believe this as Holy Tradition puts him as first of the 70, and I see no reason why James would be both in the 12 and in the 70. I also believe that, not only was ALL bishops chosen from the 70, but NONE were chosen from the 12! That means the first bishop of Rome was Linus, not Peter, who was number 39 of the 70, and Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Antioch either! The first bishop of Antioch was a man named Peter, but he wasn’t Cephas of the 12, but was likewise one of the 70 apostles. I know there was some historian that said this because I know I read it somewhere, perhaps it was Eusebius.

 

[benedictus2]

Luke 10:1, “And after these things, the Lord did appoint also other seventy, and sent them by twos before his face, to every city and place whither he himself was about to come.” Apostle is “apostolos” meaning “commissioner” The word “sent” in this verse is “apesteilen” meaning “He-commissions”. Several early teachers in the Church refereed to these 70 as apostles. Tradition says that there were actually 72 of them. Take a look at this link to an Orthodox web page showing the Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles. This Orthodox Web page has a list of the 70 apostles and it has St James first on the list to be commemorated. You may note also that #39 on the list of the Seventy is Linus, bishop of Rome. I’m sure this list comes from the list that Hippolytus of Rome made in a book that he wrote that was titled, “On the Seventy Apostles of Christ”.

The idea that James was the first of the Seventy just as Peter was first of the Twelve fits the verse by Paul very well!

“He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve [Cephas was one of the Twelve, the first]. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles [James was one of the Seventy, the first].”

God grants us peace!

I think you are blurring the lines by appealing to the etymology of apostle.

The 70 were never referred to as Apostles. This applied only to the twelve.

The apostleship of the 70 are similar to the apostleship that we are all called to.

In the strictest sense, during the time of Chrsit, only twelve were apostles and then Paul was also included.

 

[jlhargus]

Hi JL,

I see you all the time, and our paths rarely cross, but its always good when they do.

On the last line, . And even if one equates Peter to the rock, and not just his confession of faith, this too, based on my limited knowledge of the early councils, doesn’t translate to the role the papacy now holds for itself. Is Peter a vital, perhaps even central figure in the foundation of the Church? No denying it. Jon

JL: Thanks Jon, I see and read you here and there also. Different ages require development otherwise it is stagnation. John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, “That They All Be One”, not sure of spelling or name. Anyway long story short. He opened up for ecumenical discussion the role of the Office of Peter. In other words there is a God given office, which must always be. How that office is exercised and functions is open for discussion.

 

[JohnVIII]

I need to make a correction! I had said that I thought for sure that I had read somewhere that the first bishop of Antioch was Peter, but that it wasn’t the Peter of the 12, but rather another Peter of the 70. I looked all over for where I may have read this and have concluded that I had to have been wrong about this.

According to Eusebius Evodius was the first bishop of Antioch, which makes since because Evodius was also one of the 70 Apostles, #63 on the list of the 70 Apostles by Hippolytus of Rome.

" At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first. " (Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, chapter 22)

I also found here that “Origen (in Luc. Hom. VI.) is an indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch.”

In addition, I was also wrong to say that the verses in Galatians where St Paul referred to “Cephas” was a reference to St Peter of the 12. This “Cephas” was not St Peter, but was likewise one of the 70 Apostles, Here’s a quote:

" They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.” " (From Eusebius (Eccles Hist, 1.12.2) in which he was quoting Clement of Alexandria in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes)

There is only one Cephas listed in the 70 Apostles and it is #51, and this Cephas was appointed the bishop of Iconium, which city is 90 miles from Antioch. Therefore this is the most likely canidate for the Cephas that St Paul made reference to in Galatians, rather than St Peter the Apostle of the 12. There is a good study of this made by a JAMES LIKOUDIS here.

I have corrected two errors I made, but my assertion that all the bishops in the Church first came from members of the 70 Apostles and not from any of the 12 Apostles still holds true.

 

[joe370]

JohnVIII;8581052]I need to make a correction! I had said that I thought for sure that I had read somewhere that the first bishop of Antioch was Peter, but that it wasn’t the Peter of the 12, but rather another Peter of the 70. I looked all over for where I may have read this and have concluded that I had to have been wrong about this.

According to Eusebius Evodius was the first bishop of Antioch, which makes since because Evodius was also one of the 70 Apostles, #63 on the list of the 70 Apostles by Hippolytus of Rome.

" At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first. " (Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, chapter 22)

I also found here that “Origen (in Luc. Hom. VI.) is an indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch.”

In addition, I was also wrong to say that the verses in Galatians where St Paul referred to “Cephas” was a reference to St Peter of the 12. This “Cephas” was not St Peter, but was likewise one of the 70 Apostles, Here’s a quote:

" They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.” " (From Eusebius (Eccles Hist, 1.12.2) in which he was quoting Clement of Alexandria in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes)

There is only one Cephas listed in the 70 Apostles and it is #51, and this Cephas was appointed the bishop of Iconium, which city is 90 miles from Antioch. Therefore this is the most likely canidate for the Cephas that St Paul made reference to in Galatians, rather than St Peter the Apostle of the 12. There is a good study of this made by a JAMES LIKOUDIS here.

I have corrected two errors I made, but my assertion that all the bishops in the Church first came from members of the 70 Apostles and not from any of the 12 Apostles still holds true.

Maybe you were right when you thought you were wrong or maybe you were wrong when you thought you were right; hard for us to know, with certainty, one way or the other which is why, in the end, I simply put my faith in Jesus by trusting that He is guiding His church, as a whole (as opposed to just one man, such as me, you, Eusebius, or Likoudis) - into all truth, as per scripture.

 

[joe370]

I think you are blurring the lines by appealing to the etymology of apostle.

The 70 were never referred to as Apostles. This applied only to the twelve.

The apostleship of the 70 are similar to the apostleship that we are all called to.

In the strictest sense, during the time of Chrsit, only twelve were apostles and then Paul was also included.

 

[ftbond]

If you want some really great “linguistics” info on Matt 16:18, you should check out this website:

freetowne.com/pppk

The guy has got some great info, sources & references… Just sticks to linguistics, though… doesn’t get into doctrinal stuff…