[Mr Rogers]

And note that Peter was afraid of the delegation from James, and that Paul called James (first in the list), Peter and John ‘so-called pillars’. And that his statement is found in writings the Catholic Church agrees is inspired by God.

Thus, I reject the ‘establishing the Papacy’ interpretation for the ones I mentioned previously.

The Catholic interpretation cannot be shown false, but it seems highly unlikely, given the statements and history found elsewhere in the Bible.

[papertyger]

And note that Peter was afraid of the delegation from James

It's kind of hard to make Paul's rebuke mentioned in Galatians 2 the same incident as Acts 15 when Peter is arguing *for* exactly what Paul later corrects him on.

The more natural understanding is by the time Paul rebukes Peter at Antioch, Peter has fallen back into bad habits.

[papertyger]

Thus, I reject the ‘establishing the Papacy’ interpretation for the ones I mentioned previously.

The "list" argument is mighty thin once it's shown the "fear" argument has nothing to do with Acts 15. On it's own...hardly a credible reason to search out other meanings for Matthew 16.

[papertyger]

The Catholic interpretation cannot be shown false, but it seems highly unlikely, given the statements and history found elsewhere in the Bible.

Then how do you explain Matthew 16 without all the specious protestant cross-referencing?