[Uncle Chip]

"I have never given it a lot of thought one way or the other, why does it matter whether Peter was the founder, or Bishop, of the Roman Church? Is it tied to the idea that they have supreme leader, who was above all other Apostles?"

It is a matter of credibility. Is the legend of the Roman Church true or is Scripture? Too many Protestants have just accepted the fact of a 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome as fact, when Scripture and honest Patriarchs and honest Catholic scholars testify against it.

The question is why do Protestant scholars blindly accept this myth rather than believe the truth of the Scriptures on this matter. Where the Scriptures are silent on a matter, scholars should be. But when Peter writes an epistle from Babylon, as late as 65 AD, why do believers in Sola Scriptura so readily spiritualize Babylon away and say that he really meant Rome. What else are believers in Sola Scriptura spiritualizing away?

[wmfights]

"It is a matter of credibility. Is the legend of the Roman Church true or is Scripture?"
_____________________________

I follow this completely. Objective pursuit of the truth should always be our goal.

[adiaireton8]

Is the legend of the Roman Church true or is Scripture?

No place in Scripture is there anything that shows that Peter's Roman bishopric was not 25 years.

-A8