BarJonas vs Peter

The question of whether Christ is the rock of the church or if Peter was is a tough question. Both can be foundations as Jesus is referred to a rock and the apostles are said to be a foundation in Ephesians 2.

We have to realize that neither view proves the Papacy.

Matthew 16:17-18 says nothing of Rome or Papacy. That doctrine is unsupported and speculative.

So what if Petros (Peter) or his work is the Petra (rock) that Christ's builds with.

1. Christ is the owner. "My church"

2. Christ is the builder. "I will build"

3. Christ is the chief cornerstone of the church.

4. Peter is a moveable stone.

5. Barjonah means son of Jonah, a moveable preacher.

If the foundation is Peter is and Peter is a smaller moveable stone, then we need to accept that. If not we must reject it.

Peter as a smaller moveable stone does not meet the definition of a Papacy, but would disprove it.

It makes sense if you contrast the name Petros with BarJonas (Son of Jonah)

Jonah was a preacher sent to Ninevah, a city that had been at war with Israel. Just as Jonah preached repentance to God's enemies, Peter preached repentance to those who stood against Christ.

Peter as a moveable stone and a moveable evangelist, was actually the same work as Simon BarJonas Everywhere he went the word of God was delivered and bound.

It doesn't prove the Papacy which is in a fixed city, but rather shows a moveable evangelist. It disproves the Papacy. All of the Apostles preached the Gospel of the kingdom and bound it wherever they preached, Peter was just the prodigy of a past evangelist.

Peter's teaching was binding whether spoken in Jerusalem, Samaria, Egypt, Babylon, Antioch, or Rome. A fixed city of power is disproven by Christ's interaction in this instance.