>> Shall I now need go fetch examples for the contrary? How about doubting Thomas? <<
Go read the passage of doubting Thomas. He does NOT ask any questions to Jesus. He declares in Jesus’ absence that he would need to see proof of the Resurrection, and then Jesus appears to him and shows him the proof. No questions.
In every list of the apostles, Peter is called, “first.” But Andrew was the first apostle! True, Peter was first to see the risen Lord, but only because Peter stopped, and yielded to Peter! So, “Petrus, primus” refers not to Peter being first in chronology, but first in primacy!
>> Or those who questioned Him as who would be greater in the Kingdom of Heaven <<
There is no mention as to which asked him that. But he then repeated to the 12 PART of what he told Peter... and after that, Peter asks the questions (v. 21). And yes, many times he answered to the 12 together, but when he spoke of the keys of the kingdom, he specifically addressed Peter alone. When he directed, “shepherd my sheep,” he specifically addressed Peter alone.
At the transfiguration, who was there? Peter, James and John. At the Garden of Gethesemane, who was there? Peter James and John. To John, he left care of his mother. James would be glorified by martyrdom first. And Peter would lead.
>> would you interpret and explain what I just said directly to the multitudes? <<
That’s just stupid. Of course, he needs to instruct Peter first. But then when he is gone, who interprets the succession of Judas to the apostles (Acts 1) ? Peter. Who interprets Pentecost to the crowds (Acts 2)? Peter. Who interprets Joel and David? Peter. Who did Andrew yield to, arriving at the Tomb of the Resurrected Christ? Peter. Who speaks to the onlooker when the beggar was healed (Acts 3)? Peter. Who speaks to the Sanhedrin the apostles (Acts 4)? Peter. Who condemns Ananias and Sapphira? Peter. Whose shadow do people reach for to be healed (Acts 5)? Peter. Who advocates for the 12 in persecution? Peter. Who bests Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8)? Peter.
Whose vision, wthout seconding or interpretation by another apostle, leads to welcoming the gentiles and abandoning kosher laws, overturning Moses? Peter!
>> How about instead of myself going and digging out scriptures where other Apostles do directly interact with the Christ, you go play fetch and bring to us here multiple instances of the other Apostles shrinking back, and in actuality pushing Peter forward while saying at the same time to Peter “you ask for us”, instead of there being instances of Peter’s own boldness of stepping forward (on his own ‘get-go’, as it were) rather than being “asked”. <<
OK:
Mat 14:28
Mat 15:15
Mat 16:16
Mat 17:14
Mat 17:26
Mat 18:21
Mat 19:27
And about FOURTY MORE INSTANCES!!!
I thought them guys on the road to Emmaus were the first ones?
Here [below the following text in blue] is the first passage from your list which you supply in answer to the request I made, which is alleged to supply answer to that request under condition of --- as I put it;
bring to us here multiple instances of the other Apostles shrinking back, and in actuality pushing Peter forward while saying at the same time to Peter “you ask for us”
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. 31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?Neither did I find anything of the sort (other Apostles asking Peter to ask for them) in wider context of the rest of that chapter. About as close as that passage gets, is just prior in that same chapter they wear all fearful at the sight of Christ walking upon the water, but Peter more bold after Christ spoke directly to them all.
Which is still far short of the others saying "Peter, you ask Him FOR us".
Can't you SEE that???
As I made mention in my previous comment to you here, even as you copied and pasted in your own reply (did you not read what I wrote to you? Ugh! this is SO tedious! what is it with Papists anyway? Do they not read much of anything other than Roman Catholic apologetic web pages or something--- but when anyone else even goes to the time & effort to write to themselves directly, they just skim over it? EVEN when they copy/past the same? holy ToLEDO!) -- there are numerous instances where Peter steps forward (as it were), but I know not of any where the others as you said >but ask Peter to ask for them< which means you seem to be attempting to misrepresent what the scripture actually says...or even indicate, having added this "extra" sense, that the others were "asking" Peter, to "ask for them".
Otherwise, bring any full passages HERE which would show that I am missing that which would make the underlined portion of your own statement to which I previously, and here again make reply --- seen as true. How about in even ONE instance? huh?
Are you going to force me into bringing EACH and every scripture passage which you give small listing of, here to these pages to show just how much they ALL FAIL to do what you say they do?
How about --- yourself going to fish out all the passages, read them for yourself and see if they actually fit the bill, before sending ME on wild goose chase/fishing expedition, for I suspect you may have not read them -- and possibly lifted the 'list' which you proclaim there are FORTY MORE example for -- from some Papist apologetics page.
I say this --- for otherwise, unless you be yourself willfully reading into them that which is not there -- you cannot actually believe that any of them show other Apostles as having asked Peter --to ask for them? I'm not willing to assume that you are that STUPID.
After not getting a bite on the first cast (your list of citations) not the tiniest nibble (you guaranteed I would catch a whopper), I had a mind to not play "go fish" with your list any further, but did so anyway, and found nothing of the sort which you claim, for there is nothing showing the other Apostles to have asked Peter to ask Jesus -- anything.
In Matthew 17, as in each other chapter also, we see Christ addressing them severally, all together, more so than singularly speaking to Peter alone, and in verse 26 is shown Peter answering a question Christ asked of Peter himself directly;
Now one would think that somewhere along the line, if notion of "Petrine primacy" be valid in the various manners which Papists seek for that to be applied, then from Christ, Paul, even Peter himself would have come further theological insight as towards better foundation of this highly singular claim ---which I must again point out-- was not seen in earliest centuries in the wider church as belonging only to Rome.
Was everyone that stupid -- for centuries? Was the church that much in the dark as to how Ekklesia was to function, that it took many centuries (longer than the U.S. Constitution has been in print, like about than three times as long) for even Rome itself to begin to get a grip on it?
Or was that "grip" more of a grasping reach? It is interesting that no one else (who wasn't already part of the 'Western' church) agreed with Rome, when Rome made the big push to finalize the claim for itself and it's bishop (which claim had been simmering and inflating for about four centuries, approx.) when the big split between East & West occurred in 1054.
The Eastern churches saw the difference being over the Filioque, while the Latin church chose that time to bring out that bigger fish to fry (as in -- Rome alone, head and shoulders above the rest -- was "Peter heir"), the Big Fish of the Entire World (other than Jesus). It came about in such a nasty fashion -- fighting over the wording of where the spirit "proceedeth" from!
The rest of what you wrote --- is Romish-tinted-lens gibberish, in that regardless of Peter's own role as seen in scripture, there was never a sense in the early church that what was bestowed upon Peter, would be given over only in succession to bishops of Rome ALONE, in single file order there --- but not elsewhere, even not elsewhere unless they went thru Rome/recieved charter from Rome, etc, which ideas I mention in hopes of heading off tacks in that direction (I've seen Papists pull just about every trick in the book -- all of them aimed at maintaining appearances of Papal righteousness over and above all, regardless of the abundance of primary evidence available to the contrary).
On the other hand, there is evidence for there having been a positive sense that such as was given to Peter as seen in Matthew 16, was alsogiven over to all the rest directly from God, as can be seen well enough in Matthew 18 (if not gaining some sense it be for all in chapter 16, for I do see it there also) then later passed down to & through the offices of all the other "patriarchates", with there being required among them --- not need for permission from Rome, or unilateral obeisance towards Rome for establishment of their own validity (as bishopric) but those bishoprics also honestly enough (even as from the very beginning!) able to hold for themselves autonomy of sorts, with that autonomy belonging severally to each and all, with all of them jointly successors to Peter (in the spiritual sense) just as all were also successors to Paul and all the rest. The first church -- was a commune of sorts, do not forget...
This idea of patriarchates was basically one of regional bishops from locations of particular local importance, which locations themselves also had history of Apostolicity for having been founded by (or at least overseen directly at some time) by various Apostles themselves personally, with Peter during his own time not claiming anything like "primacy" for himself as in sole or singular authority, or much of anything resembling such... which was not in rather communal manner shared among all,leaving them all, from the barest beginning be subject to one another [Ephesians 5:19-21], as it is written that it should be -- for THAT was how they were directed to proceed.
It was not for many centuries that the Latin branch of the church began to press claim for themselves (for their own "pope", while other patriarchs were called "pope" also, at least long ago) this idea of there being in Rome alone the "keys" which Peter was given (as I mentioned previously also -- that was taken care of in Matthew 18, when Christ again raised the issue there, while addressing them all together, all at once when speaking of the "keys" which were given to them -- the binding and loosening) leaving this Romish idea of singular Papacy, which cannot but include also Supremacy over all others, be an invention of centuries after the fact of the church's earliest inceptions, for that sense of organizational hierarchy was not there from the onset, no matter how hard Rome continues to attempt to spin it, squeezing it out of various scripture passages by way of eisegesis, even that which Tradition predating singular "Papacy" itself, clearly and undeniably refutes!
The gig is up. There is far too much historical information available to far too many people TODAY, than at any time in history.
No one has to sit back and allow the Church of Rome to LIE TO THEIR FACE, any longer.
Examination of that (history) as I spoke previously towards also, leaves Papists clinging to the idea of there being singular Papacy (thus Supremacy too) needing to rely upon Newmanesque development theory, with Papists today needing to see in every interaction of Peter with Christ (as found in scripture) yet another 'acorn'. BUT --- as I continually point out --- that wasn't the understanding of the wider universal thus "catholic" church for many centuries!
Were they all so STUPID that everyone (including in Rome itself) did not notice that that was what the good Lord intended -- until long centuries later? And by some freak coincidence (imagine that, ha!) it was Rome itself who said -- "oh, by the way -- God died, and did Rise again from the grave, before leaving us all behind, and wait for it...
...left us in charge Supremely Primarily in direct ecclesiastical authority over all others! Ta-DA!
But if you don't agree (came the modern-day development, after previous centuries of saying in myriad ways that all else other than those who submitted to the Roman Pontiff were condemned, damned to hell for willful resistance to claims of Romish authority) while otherwise in any form 'Christian' (heck --even if you are a God fearing-Muslim that believes in 'one God' or a Jew) than you are connected to "The Church" albeit imperfectly, yet through "divine papal office" --- and you can't get the blessings we [claim to] enjoy from God [as much as we can!] unless you come bow yourselves before our Pope & priesthood.
Would God have left such an important aspect or set of considerations (which do indeed have far reaching theological implication) for only this one branch of the church, the Western branch, to on it's own discover many centuries after the original foundings of the various Ekklesia that it alone and above, apart from all others -- was singular inheritor to Peter?
No, I do not believe that, for the early church did not believe that OR PRACTICE it either.
I believe in Christ having been crucified for the sins of many, even the entire world, if they would but go to Him, each and everyone, for the sacrifice was and still is sufficient for all, instead.
I don't believe for one solitary second -- that He willfully made Himself hostage to Rome's priesthood, which ultimately (but without coming right out and saying it) much or most of the "theology" which is "Romish" (in comparison to Christian traditions in any and all direction elsewhere) can see to much equate to including.
The prisoner has not only escaped -- but was never prisoner (of Rome) in the first place.