A new wrinkle on the Primacy of Peter

[linus]

RyanL:

As to why Peter wasn’t the “Bishop of Jerusalem”…I can’t really say (as we’re not told in any writings that I know of). My speculation is that he had a different mission, being called to evangelize the gentiles (Acts 15:7). Jews were in Jerusalem, gentiles in Rome (and elsewhere).

Ah, so you appeal to “writings,” eh? Peter’s “mission” was not to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Yes, he was the first to take the gospel to Gentiles, but taking the gospel to the Gentile world was not his Divine commission - that was Paul’s.

GAL 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised…"

GAL 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

GAL 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised…"

Also notice that it was James, Peter and John who were considered “pillars.” No “Primacy of Peter” here. And Paul doesn’t even list Peter first, which was another argument on this thread.

God Bless,
L.

 

[Church_Militant]

linus:

But to be true to the text, Peter didn’t call HIm Yahweh

, he called Him “the Messiah.” And Jesus didn’t say to Peter, upon “you,” but, upon "this" rock I will build my church. One must be careful not to manipulate Scripture in order to force it into saying something it does not. To press it into serving one’s own doctrines. The true Christian faith is always based on divine revelation, never man’s manipulation.Whoa, whoa, whoa… This is YOUR interpretation of this passage and typical of non-Catholics. The original language is singular and so when Jesus says “you” it is clear that he is still talking to Peter.

In the end the whole discussion hinges on a couple of realities that you will probably not acknowlege, but the fact is that the discussion took place in Aramaic, not Greek and that if Jesus had not meant that Peter was the rock upon which He chose to build His church, (Note also that Jesus here says he will build his church, not author a book. That was His church’s doing.) then why did he call him Cephas…and why did the other NT writers refer to Peter by that name? It stuck because they all knew exactly what Jesus intended.

Moreover, if Peter wasn’t the chief apostle, then why was it to him that Jesus said:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. (John 21:15-17)

and again: 31: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32: but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” (Luke 22:21-32)

And why is Peter listed first among the apostles in every list of the 12? Even today we list the highest ranking persons in any organization that way…and that was the case back then as well.

The Catholic Church does not manipulate anything, but refers to 2,000 years of Christian history that most non-Catholics are either drastically ignorant of or choose to discount because they cannot accept that the early church didn’t hold the same post reformation new winds of doctrine that men introduced about 500 years ago and that have developed into the morass we face today.

Frankly, if I was looking for a manipulated doctrine of men, I wouldn’t have to look far in this case, but only study the teachings of most non-Catholics (as I have for over 30 years).Man, it’s great to be home!
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Church_Militant]

linus:

We know from both Biblical (1 Cor. 1:12-13) and Church history that division occurs when men look to other men rather than Christ Himself as their final authority. The message of the Apostles was Christ Himself, no one else, never themselves. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, must all learn from history and simply get back to Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 12:12-14; 2 Cor. 11:1-3).

Catholicism has never departed from it. This is just your biased and not very well read nor informed opinion.

 

[linus]

Milliardo:

You seem to have a very poor grasp on how traditon gets passed. Let’s see–first of all, only less than half of the Apostles wrote anything. Are we to say then that those who did not write anything had their audience not preserve anything out of it? Many tribes in Africa do not have any means of writing, nor do many write, yet they have perfectly preserved their traditions and genealogy orally through generations. So in those two examples your notion completely falls.

To answer the first part, the gospel message itself: the death, burial and subsequent resurrection of Christ, along with personal belief in Him for the forgiveness of sins and the free gifts of justification and eternal life, can be presented orally. But we (today) have no record of what the Apostles themselves taught concerning the various doctrines of the faith except what is hard copied and preserved in Divinely inspired Scriptures.

As for those African tribes to which you make reference, you need to take into account that you’re talking in the context of one geographical location of people, one culture, and one language within that tribe. The Gospel of Christ, on the other hand, was taken to the world, to many cultures and many languages.

But even amongst those “African tribes,” you cannot be positively sure that changes didn’t occur in respect to their original traditions down through the centuries. Unless somehow documented it’s impossible to honestly make that assertion. Oh, you can claim it, but you can’t prove it.

But we have the *God-breathed * Scriptures as our authority and documented proof concerning “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” By these we can test the man-made traditions handed down by those who label them “orthodox.”

God Bless,
L.

 

[linus]

Church Militant:

Catholicism has never departed from it. This is just your biased and not very well read nor informed opinion.

OH? Is that so???

"Finally it was Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) who claimed to be “Vicar of Christ,” “Vicar of God,” and “Supreme Sovereign of the Church and the World.” He announced that “All things on earth and in heaven and in hell are subject to the Vicar of Christ.” This, of course, culminated in the famous Papal bull by Boniface the VIII (1294-1303): “We declare, affirm, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary for Salvation that every creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

How different from Paul and his very narrow teaching concerning Jesus Christ:

EPH. 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of
the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.”

COL. 1:18 “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the
first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in
everything.”

2TIM. 2:10 “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are
chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and
with it eternal glory.”

ACT 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”

God Bless,
L.

 

[linus]

Church Militant:

In the end the whole discussion hinges on a couple of realities that you will probably not acknowlege, but the fact is that the discussion took place in Aramaic, not Greek and that if Jesus had not meant that Peter was the rock upon which He chose to build His church, (Note also that Jesus here says he will build his church, not author a book. That was His church’s doing.) then why did he call him Cephas…and why did the other NT writers refer to Peter by that name? It stuck because they all knew exactly what Jesus intended.

First of all, you’re right, I don’t accept the “Aramaic” argument. It is Scripture itself that is “God-breathed,” and these “God-breathed,” written accounts were originally penned in Greek. The Greek texts are what God gave us, hence, they’re what we must build doctrine on. You have no proof of knowing the exact Aramaic words Jesus spoke to Peter, unless you were there. Secondly, you can’t claim to know what the N.T. writers knew in respect to "exactly what Jesus intended"; we can only go by what they actually recorded in the Scriptures. Thirdly, you’re correct, Jesus didn’t author a book. He, to this very day, nay, to this very moment, continues to build His Church UPON the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. Prophets, He, Himself being the cornerstone (and the Architect). The Holy Spirit authored the Scriptures through human agency. Jesus Himself penned no Scriptures. The Scriptures were not orally produced, they were written.

God Bless,
L.

 

[NotWorthy]

Linus,
Why is this so difficult to accept? Every kingdom in the ancient near east had a king. EVERY KINGDOM! I know that’s easy to comprehend. But take this a little further. Each and every kingdom in the ancient near east also had a prime minister. We see this starting in Genesis with Joseph in Egypt. The Pharoah made Joseph his Grand Vizier and gave him his signet ring (equal to the keys of the Davidic Kingdom as a symbol of power). He gave Joseph all the power that the Pharaoh has, in his absence.

In Israel, there was a prime minister. He was gifted with the keys to the kingdom. Whatever he locks, none shall unlock. Whatever he unlocks, none shall lock. This is documented numerous times in the Old Testament.

Now, Jesus is talking to a bunch of Jews. Any Jew who has an inkling of historical knowledge would know exactly what Jesus is saying when he is given “the keys to the kingdom. What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In response to what Jesus calls Peter, in John you’ll note that Jesus tells Simon, upon meeting him, I shall call you Kephas.

In regards to Jesus calling Simon Petros, was Petros still used to mean small rock in the time of Jesus, or had that long lost its meaning by the time of Jesus. I thought that every time in the New Testament that an author refers to stones, he uses the term Lithos. I may be wrong on this, though.

God Bless,

Notworthy

 

[Church_Militant]

linus:

OH? Is that so???

"Finally it was Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) who claimed to be “Vicar of Christ,” “Vicar of God,” and "Supreme Sovereign of the Church and the World

." He announced that “All things on earth and in heaven and in hell are subject to the Vicar of Christ.” This, of course, culminated in the famous Papal bull by Boniface the VIII (1294-1303): “We declare, affirm, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary for Salvation that every creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

How different from Paul and his very narrow teaching concerning Jesus Christ:

EPH. 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of
the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body."

COL. 1:18 "He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the
first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in
everything."

2TIM. 2:10 "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are
chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and
with it eternal glory."

ACT 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

God Bless,
L.If Christ establishes an authority in His church who are you or any of us to oppose it lest you find yourself in opposition to God?

There is nothing in our religion that says that anyone but Christ is our savior. You can proof text (out of context) your brains out and it doesn’t change the facts.

 

[Church_Militant]

First of all

, you’re right, I don’t accept the “Aramaic” argument. It is Scripture itself that is “God-breathed,” and these “God-breathed,” written accounts were originally penned in Greek. The Greek texts are what God gave us, hence, they’re what we must build doctrine on. You have no proof of knowing the exact Aramaic words Jesus spoke to Peter, unless you were there. Secondly, you can’t claim to know what the N.T. writers knew in respect to "exactly what Jesus intended"; we can only go by what they actually recorded in the Scriptures. Thirdly, you’re correct, Jesus didn’t author a book. He, to this very day, nay, to this very moment, continues to build His Church UPON the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. Prophets, He, Himself being the cornerstone (and the Architect). The Holy Spirit authored the Scriptures through human agency. Jesus Himself penned no Scriptures. The Scriptures were not orally produced, they were written.

God Bless,
L.There’s no way you cannot accept the "Aramaic Argument’ since it’s clearly stated in 8 different places in the NT where Peter is called by his Aramaic name that Christ Himself gave him. Note the very first one and the fact that that is Christ Himself. Here’s the list:

1 John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

2 1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.

3 1 Corinthians 3:22 For all things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to some; for all are yours;

4 1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

5 1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.

6 Galatians 2:9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

7 Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

8 Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

So none of us can know what was said in Aramaic huh? Just what language did Jesus and the apostles and (in fact) all of Israel speak at that time? And since you reject the idea that Matthew (who was a Jew himself) first penned his gospel in his native tongue, I just have to ask you then what was it that he recorded and recounted to us in Greek if not a conversation that took place in Aramaic. By your faulty reasoning then we should also reject the Greek and Hebrew texts and adhere only to the English texts, since they are the only texts that we can understand and therefor the only ones that we can have assurance are inspired. That of course is not true…but that is the nature of the faulty logic that you display.

You have no proof of knowing the exact Aramaic words Jesus spoke to Peter, unless you were there. Secondly

, you can’t claim to know what the N.T. writers knew in respect to "exactly what Jesus intended"; we can only go by what they actually recorded in the Scriptures. And worse still, you have no proof of knowing if any of the Greek is textually correct sine you were not there either and none of those original documents have survived to us. So you shoot yourself with your own gun so to speak. “We” cannot “only go by what they actually recorded in the Scriptures” since none of the originals survives today. :bible1:

The Holy Spirit authored the Scriptures through human agency. Jesus Himself penned no Scriptures. The Scriptures were not orally produced, they were written.

Through what “human agency” did the Holy Spirit author the Scriptures? Did He “possess” a man and use his actual hand to pen it, …or was it some other way? Inspiration perhaps?
Pax tecum,

 

[Mystophilus]

CindyGia:

Mathhew 18:18
“αμην λεγω υμιν οσα εαν δησητε επι της γης εσται δεδεμενα εν τω ουρανω και οσα εαν λυσητε επι της γης εσται λελυμενα εν τω ουρανω.”

English translation:
18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

ok, am I missing something here?

That depends entirely upon what it is that you think you are seeing there.

Something that might be worth mentioning is that “you” is plural in every location in Mt 18:18, which is obvious in the Greek but invisible in the English (because we stupidly managed to lose the uniqueness of the plural form by allowing it to subsume the singular “thou”).

 

[Mystophilus]

RyanL:

In that council, two declarations were made:

One was infallible, and thus is still binding on the consciences of all the Christian faithful. Everyone at the council shut up when this was said, and the later declaration was made in light of the infallible pronouncement (read: “Therefore…”).

The other was a pastoral decision arrived at by the entire council, which St. Paul negates in later epistles (proving that this was not binding on the consciences of all the Christian faithful for all time, and therefore not infallible).

Wanna’ guess who said what? If you get this right, you’ll know who was in charge…

With respect, this is not an entirely accurate representation. Esigêsen de pan to plêthos kai êkouon Barnaba kai Paulou exêgoumenôn…
“And all of the multitude became silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul describing…”

There is no indication that the silence was anything other than polite attendance to the subsequent narrative, and there is no evidence for the existence of the idea of infallible ecclesiastical pronouncement in C1st church theology.

 

[Mystophilus]

MrS:

I assume you mean the same Christ Who said “… he who hears you, hears Me” and the same Christ Who said “… he who rejects you, rejects Me, and the One Who sent Me …”

Do you reject the only Church found by Christ… the leadership of which He was giving this power/authority/responsibility to?

Which Church would that be, exactly? The Orthodox Church claims that position for itself, the Roman Catholic Church claims that position for itself, and ecumenicalists claim that position for all Christians everywhere. I am afraid that I do not know enough about the Copts or the Ethiopians, but it is quite possible that they, too, hold views upon this issue. The Orthodox position is at least as historically justifiable as the Roman one, while the ecumenical position is the only one to suggest that Jesus’ passionate prayer for unity (John 17:21) was not utterly dismissed.

Still, some people would rather “triumph” by asserting their own rightness than follow Jesus’ lead.

 

[Mystophilus]

Fidelis:

The verse you cite addresses the other Apostles, but Mt 16 addresses Peter alone. In addition, he is given the keys, unlike Mt 18 where no individual authority to bind or loose is given.

Exactly; in Mt 18, that authority is clearly defined as being distributed, rather than concentrated, the πετρα of the πετρος.

These charges are all common Protestant and Orthodox false interpretations and have been answered ad nauseum in these forums.

They have been answered many times, but they have never been disproven, which is not surprising when one considers the fact that the majority of the Fathers asserted that the foundation of the Church was Peter but not Peter alone, as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church (q.v. para. 424; 442; 552; 756).

 

[Mystophilus]

jdnation:

But these are Canon Laws, are they not? I don’t think they are the same as Scripture or Tradition, and are subject to be changed… I suppose an argument can be made only if something in there directly contradicted Scripture or Tradition, but I don’t notice any…

From an Orthodox point of view, these councils are the highest of authorities:The seven ecumenical councils with their doctrinal formulations are of particular importance. Specifically, these assemblies were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine. As such, they constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the persons of Christ, the incarnation. The mystery of the divine reality was evidently not exhausted by these verbal definitions. All the same, they constitute an authoritative norm against which all subsequent speculative theology is measured. Their decisions remain binding for the whole Church; non-acceptance constitutes exclusion from the communion of the Church.
This is why the filioque issue was such a big deal.

 

[Mystophilus]

linus:

What proof do have that Matthew was “originally” written in Aramaic?

There is no proof. What apparently happened is that Eusebius took Papias’ comment on the “Hebrew logia of Matthew” to refer to an Aramaic gospel of Matthew, of which we have yet to find any actual evidence. Were such a document to turn up, it would prove to be immensely valuable in literary and linguistic terms, but, right now, it may as well be sitting inside the Holy Grail.

The point is one is to approach the Scriptures without ANY presuppositions, thereby allowing the Scriptures themselves to teach us.

Although this would be nice, it is not actually possible. Words are not the actual things which they represent. As such, there is a “gap of interpretation”, wherein you read what I have written, and then you construct a meaning for these words based upon your understanding of the words, your understanding of the language, and your apprehension of the possibilities for what I could actually be trying to say.

We do not read perfectly, because God did not make us to be perfect.

For this reason, literary scholars never consider any reading of any text to be “the last word”.

In respect to the primacy of Peter, other than your interpretation of Matt. 16:18, can you show me where any of the writers of the Epistles categorically teach Peter’s primacy?

If you read through the texts of the NT, you will notice a consist habit of referring to Peter first in lists of the apostles. While (as I believe your wise self pointed out) this does not always happen, it is a distinct trend. The important point to remember is that Peter’s position was one of being “first among equals”, rather than one of rulership.

 

[linus]

Mystophilus:

There is no proof. What apparently happened is that Eusebius took Papias’ comment on the “Hebrew logia of Matthew” to refer to an Aramaic gospel of Matthew, of which we have yet to find any actual evidence. Were such a document to turn up, it would prove to be immensely valuable in literary and linguistic terms, but, right now, it may as well be sitting inside the Holy Grail.

Yes, certainly if found it would have linguistic value, but do you really believe it would have been the “original” writing and the Greek manuscripts merely the translations of it? That only Matthew’s Gospel account was originally inspired by the Holy Spirit in Aramaic, and all that was preserved were not copies of the original, but merely translations into Greek? Just how trustworthy then would Matthew’s account be? With the extant Greek manuscript copies we can scientifically compare them to get as close to the originals as possible, but if all we have are translations of Matthew from the original Aramaic into the Greek, then such a method would be rendered useless since we’re not even starting out with an original language. I know, some will not be thinking and come back with, “how then can we trust our English translations?” But our English translations are based on the original Greek language, i.e., Greek copies."

Personally, I don’t doubt that the original Greek manuscript may have was once been translated into Aramaic, but I, personally, cannot accept the claim that’s going around by many Catholics that Matthew was originally, Holy Spirit inspired and penned in Aramaic, which, oh by the way, got lost very early. So much for Jer. 1:12.

Continued to above post…

 

[linus]

Continued from previous post to Mystophilus…

Regarding approaching the Scriptures without any presuppositions you responded:

Although this would be nice, it is not actually possible. Words are not the actual things which they represent. As such, there is a “gap of interpretation”, wherein you read what I have written, and then you construct a meaning for these words based upon your understanding of the words, your understanding of the language, and your apprehension of the possibilities for what I could actually be trying to say.

We do not read perfectly, because God did not make us to be perfect.

For this reason, literary scholars never consider any reading of any text to be “the last word”.

I must disagree, it is very possible to come to the study table without bringing your presuppositions with you. You do this with other literary works, why should the Bible be different? Or at least with the attitude of wanting to be taught BY the Scriptures, rather than forcing upon the Scriptures that which you already believe from your religious background.

Am I saying you’re guaranteed to always come up with an error free interpretation? No. There are other factors involved, such as historical settings, knowledge of the original language (sometimes too much stress is put on this), context (immediate and overall), symbolism and figures of speech used by the authors, and a prayerful attitude. All this is part of the art and science of interpretation, called Hermeneutics. But all worthless in one’s effort to arrive at a correct interpretation if one comes to the study table tenaciously holding on to his own presuppositions (or that of his religion). This is what I see being done with the doctrine of the “Primacy of Peter” according to the Roman Catholic view, which is taught presupposes (according to them) the “Primacy” of their Popes and other Roman Prelates. There’s always a purpose propelling a presupposition.

One does not have to be “made perfect” to arrive at a correct interpretation. Otherwise the Holy Spirit inspiring the Scriptures to be written on our behalf was an exercise of futility from the onset. One merely has to abide in certain hermeneutical rules, which applies to all literature, by the way. Although, when it comes to the Scriptures, it is true that one must first be spiritually regenerated, “born again” by the Spirit to even start to comprehend the spiritual truths revealed there by Him (1 Cor. 2:10-16).

The important point to remember is that Peter’s position was one of being “first among equals”, rather than one of rulership.

First of all I don’t see anything in Scripture that speaks of Peter’s unique “position.” You interpret the idea of a unique “position among equals” when you read his name first in a list of names. But I interpret it as Peter being listed first “among equals.” I see nothing revealed in Scripture elsewhere that attributes to Peter a specific “position” in respect to the other Apostles. So how could I read that concept into a list of names. Yes, he was given the “keys of the kingdom” by Christ, but one can only deduce from the historical account in Acts that he was given the privilege of first presenting (opening up) the Gospel message to his fellow Jews (Acts 1:14) and first to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

He is listed with James (the Lord’s brother) and John as “reputed to be pillars” (Gal. 2:6, 9) by Paul, but Paul did not recognize Peter as possessing some greater position (or authority) amongst the other Apostles. Certain men may gain a greater reputation amongst his peers, but that does not translate into having a greater position. A reputation is not a position. And you certainly won’t get that concept from Paul’s words:

“But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out
our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that
the truth of the gospel might remain with you. But from those who were of
high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no
partiality)-- well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me”
(Gal. 2:4-6).

I see no Divine elevation of Peter taught in Divine revelation. And if it is not even taught there then how can it possibly be claimed for one’s religious leaders? I certainly see Apostolic authority taught in Scripture, and they being the foundation upon which Christ is building His Church, being called out from both Jews and Gentiles, but I see absolutely no evidence of that authority being passed on to “successors.” So far the arguments on this thread are fueled by the presupposition of Peter’s “Primacy,” but where is this “Primacy” conspicuously taught in the Scriptures?

God Bless,
L.

 

[kevb]

linus:

Can you show us by example where all the other Apostles bowed the knee to Peter’s authority???

From a previous thread on this subject:

" Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17).

After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18).

Throughout the New Testament, when the apostles are listed as a group, Peter’s name is always first. Sometimes it’s just "Peter and the twelve. "

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than the names of all the other apostles put together."

 

[Mystophilus]

linus:

Regarding approaching the Scriptures without any presuppositions you responded:I must disagree, it is very possible to come to the study table without bringing your presuppositions with you. You do this with other literary works, why should the Bible be different?

We do not do this we other literary works. While we would like to, we are simply unable to do so. The most we can hope to achieve is an awareness of some of our own preconceptions so that we can bracket them. If you want more on this topic, I suggest that you read up on Marxist, modernist or post-modern literary criticism, especially with reference to the likes of Edmund Husserl, Michel Foucault (on the “Subject”), Theodor Adorno, Louis Althusser, Ferdinand de Saussure, and, if you are brave, Jacques Derrida. In essence, our views of everything not immediately present are mediated by our preconceptions. Even our views of what is immediately present are subject to influence.

I would like it to be possible for us to read without influence (it would certainly improve the quality of the essays which I have to mark!). So far, unfortunately, none of us have been able to. However, we have only been trying for two and a half thousand years.

all worthless in one’s effort to arrive at a correct interpretation if one comes to the study table tenaciously holding on to his own presuppositions (or that of his religion). This is what I see being done with the doctrine of the “Primacy of Peter” according to the Roman Catholic view, which is taught presupposes (according to them) the “Primacy” of their Popes and other Roman Prelates. There’s always a purpose propelling a presupposition.

I agree that this does happen with Catholics. However, I would have to add that it also happens to the rest of us.

First of all I don’t see anything in Scripture that speaks of Peter’s unique “position.” You interpret the idea of a unique “position among equals” when you read his name first in a list of names. But I interpret it as Peter being listed first “among equals.” I see nothing revealed in Scripture elsewhere that attributes to Peter a specific “position” in respect to the other Apostles. So how could I read that concept into a list of names. Yes, he was given the “keys of the kingdom” by Christ, but one can only deduce from the historical account in Acts that he was given the privilege of first presenting (opening up) the Gospel message to his fellow Jews (Acts 1:14) and first to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

The fact that he is almost always listed first amongst the apostles, that he is often represented as the one apostle who speaks (Jesus’ question in Mt 16:15 was addressed to them all, but only Peter answered) and that he is mentioned so many times in the NT do suggest some form of significance. Exactly how that significance should be interpreted is another question, and one not so easily answered.

I certainly see Apostolic authority taught in Scripture, and they being the foundation upon which Christ is building His Church, being called out from both Jews and Gentiles, but I see absolutely no evidence of that authority being passed on to “successors.” So far the arguments on this thread are fueled by the presupposition of Peter’s “Primacy,” but where is this “Primacy” conspicuously taught in the Scriptures?

It is not, as far as I know. The Primacy of Peter is a matter of Catholic tradition.