Replies

You provided a list --- which when checking 5 or 6 did not do what you said it did. Not even once. None ever asked Peter to ask FOR them, anything. Or -- bring the evidence.I asked that in part, for none of them do what you originally claimed they would, as you worded it.

When those are seen in context, they do not at all do what you seem to be now saying either (for end result -- singular Papal Supremacy) for the wider settings show more often than not Christ addressing all the disciples in reply, with in the case of verses in Matthew 16 said to form much of the basis for "Petrine primacy", Jesus again raises the same subject two chapters later, addressing them all as to having powers of binding and loosening. With Peter there not having "asked" a question leading directly to Jesus then talking to them all about this binding and loosening, which are what the "keys" previously in Chapter 16 were said to be able to "do". It won't help to go look it up and see Peter ask another question immediately afterwards (in chapter 18, of which I speak) for the horse as it were, had already left the barn, bearing keys for all.

But now you [slightly] change the story, but without acknowledging your own wording (to which I objected) was erroneous.

While relying upon coupling of the word "ask" with use of first names.

And you can easily check out “Peter ask” in any online bible search and find 40 more. Then try, “Jude ask.” Nothing? Try “Andrew ask.” Nothing? How about even “James ask.’ Nothing.

I can think of one question asked directly by another disciple, who was quite near to Christ when he asked what he did, without doing a "search".

The question asked by this other disciple came about in quite telling context & setting, if we are to be now reading into texts meanings which then will carry over to all seen as "successors" to individuals, by way of identifying those today by their own functions, as in what they can be seen to "do" as part of "the church".

Can you guess? Just one instance, but it is enough to invalidate your use of the word "nothing", with the entire scene sketched there in the scriptures having much additional & significant implications.

Do they all have the formula, “Oh, Peter, please, we dare not ask Jesus, so ask for us?” No, or course not.

All? how about NONE have any of the other disciples asking Peter to ask Jesus for them" or even asking Peter to ask Jesus, without adding the words "for them".

I had repeated stressed (in two comments towards you) by underlining and repetition -- your own words -- which was the issue. I was hoping you would notice and provide some acknowledgement.

Now you slightly change it into "formulaic"? huh? There is no formula indicating the other disciples asked Peter to ask Jesus --- even ONCE, but which you had said was often the case. Or else bring that (as I asked) to these pages directly to see if that is actually true.

Otherwise, if you could have come out and said that you had misstated the facts, that would be a big help ---to do before --- now trying to re-state them.

But the point is to demonstrate again and again and again that Peter asked for the disciples.

And the answers provided, including the authority He said would be their own, which He (Christ) was in effect calling them all to exercise in His Kingdom, Christ gave to all -- not "Christ gave to Peter" for Peter to then distribute & administer to all the rest --- much less later persons claiming themselves Peter's sole successor have administrative authority to that degree, for as your own words now also suggest, Peter asking "for" other disciples, the answers were given to all more equally, with Peter serving as example of sorts.

In the earliest centuries of the Church -- that was the sense. As compared to a later arising (among men of the "church") labeling of notions or concept of "Petrine primacy", which ONLY those of Rome put forth as being the qualifying condition for need that thru "Peter's successor (a single one at any one time) to all the rest of Christianity in total, or to put it another way--- to rely upon Peter's own singular personal authority, which would then later be passed down only to those who may later occupy any one particular office of bishopric.

Are you listening? I doubt it. It comes across to me, that Romanists willfully adopt a form of "invincible ignorance" which admittedly is likely to come across as being rude, but which by way of even greater rudeness "Rome" (who invented the terminology) speaks of all those whom will not submit to herself on terms which she unilaterally dictates.

The fact of the matter remains, that this sense of Peter being "chief" and would pass down some chief role forever, to be in one bishopric only, which was to hold administrative rule over and above all others (or even "rule of love" as some of the slithering sidewider's put it here of late, trying desperately to keep hold of past, ill-gotten gains, any way they can) was not seen in the church for centuries.

As late as Gregory the Great, that Roman "Pontiff" himself wrote of the See Of Peterbeing in three places (the other two being Antioch & Alexandria) while also writing (in another of his letters) against the very idea of there being as it was spoken of at that juncture by another 'pope', a singular "Universal Bishop", or conceptually --- bishop of bishops --- having supremacy of rank over all others.

The mixed bag even the idea of Patriarchate holds (which in the West, in the Latin church became conflated and distorted to there being a single of what is equivalent to the in past times concept of patriarchate, with Rome alone turning that concept into singular "papacy") but which more limited original concept for has still to this day living proof for, along with valid claims of succession for those offices of Patriarchate having existed from earliest times in the church, in part by their mere existence, assist in refuting the Romish claim that all others owe to Rome now or at any time in the past, singular, unidirectional obiesence to a bishop of Rome, beyond a hoped for (but not always seen in the history of the church) collegiality of consideration and deference shared much more liberally among all, even to extent each held their own autonomy -- even as they each had full freedom to be "wrong".

In this case, it is "Rome" which is indeed wrong in such as the dogmatically proclaimed "All must be subject to the Roman Pontiff" if but for reason of sense of meaning there conveyed that did not include something along lines of "and the Roman Pontiff must be in turn equally as much subject to all the rest".

And that's on the best days, and among the best and kindest, most generous of consideration...