I’ve already posted on Matthew 16 - and 18, and John 20. It is hardly ‘rhetorical cartwheels’ to compare 3 sections that use such similar wording.
It is pretty common and certainly not contrary to scripture or reason to use passages in scripture to flesh out and explain a paragraph in another.
I see no sign that Peter was made Supreme above the other Apostles. Matthew 16 doesn’t say that, nor does it say that any favor Peter had would be passed on to any who followed him.
If anything, James would seem to have been ‘highest’ among the Apostles in scripture. Peter wouldn’t fear the followers of James if he was above James in rank.
You can call this “goofy, non-scriptural, totally conjectural, conclusions” - but I give quotes and reasons. I don’t know how else to hold a rational debate.
It is when you do so because you don't like the clear and obvious meaning of the original passage. There is no reason to go beyond Matthew 16 to understand Matthew 16 unless you are trying to make it say something other than what it says.
I mean really...the rhetorical device is so obvious it survives translation into another language!
If anything, James would seem to have been ‘highest’ among the Apostles in scripture. Peter wouldn’t fear the followers of James if he was above James in rank.
James was certainly the local Bishop, and as such chose the local implementation, but note the controversy was settled after Peter stood up and spoke, not after James ruled.