Who founded your denomination?????

[atenciom]

rod of iron:

-snip-
We can discuss whether Peter had primacy, but I have been in discussion on that topic before on this forum, and nothing was settled. The Catholic church interprets certain things in the Bible to say that Peter had primacy, but those scriptures that are quoted to support this concept need a fair amount of eternal information added for them to even suggest that those verses support primacy for Peter.

-snip-

Now before we go on, you have made a point that other people have already provided scriptural “proof” in other forums but that wasn’t acceptable to you because they lacked “eternal information”.

What do you mean by this? :ehh:

Martin

 

[atenciom]

atenciom:

-snip-
Now Corpus Christi is under the impression that you don’t really want to know the answers, you just want to argue. I’m sure you’re familiar with people like that. I don’t believe that you are . . .yet but I’m starting to because you are entertaining every subject that walks in here. If you were really interested in an answer to a particular question, you’d ask it and wait for the answer.

-snip-

CORRECTION
Please delete the underlined portion. (sorry, was a little snappish)

Martin

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

Now before we go on, you have made a point that other people have already provided scriptural “proof” in other forums but that wasn’t acceptable to you because they lacked “eternal information”.

What do you mean by this? :ehh:

Martin

What I mean is that other people on this forum have quoted verses of scripture that they believe prove the primacy of Peter. Yet, when I look at those scriptures, I feel I really need to stretch the verses to get them to prove that primacy.

I have been told that since Peter is often mentioned first when the names of the apostles are listed, that this proves his primacy. This could be, but it does not necessarily mean that he had primacy. Have you ever been to a meeting or a get-together where one of the people speak more than the others at that gathering? If you were asked by someone to name the people at the gathering, you might very well mention the one who spoke the most first, and then list others that you can remember. With the frequency that Peter opened his mouth, I am sure that he would be remembered and most often mentioned first. This may not be the case, but it is just as likely as the idea that Peter had primacy.

I have also been offered verses where Jesus is speaking to Peter. Because of what Jesus says to Peter, the Catholics here have tried to convince me that Jesus was giving Peter primacy. But I do not interpret those scriptures in that way.

I have not found a place in the Bible where Jesus directly tells Peter that Peter would be the leader of the whole church and the apostles after Jesus ascended. You can say that Jesus did pass on the leadership of the church to Peter, but it would only be that way based on the interpretation that the Catholic church has accepted. Yet, it is only an interpretation, and not necessarily correct.

In lieu of additional post-apostolic public revelation, which the Catholic church rejects, there is no way to show for sure whether or not Peter had primacy, if the Bible does not directly say that he did. That is what I mean.

 

[Aris]

Atenciom

Martin,

I didn’t insert Mary and the Saints.

ROI’s theory is that the Catholic Church is not the same as the Church that Christ established.

And he gave three aspects of our Faith that he said are not biblical.

Praying to Mary
Infant Baptism
and baptism by sprinkling

The thing is there should be an exchange of ideas and evidences. We give him proof of what he asks and he should give us his proof of what we ask.

Everybody should be able to examine the validity of the proofs presented of lineage, otherwise this would be a one way discussion.

I am still waiting for ROI’s proof. I agree let’s stick to the topic. Said in another way

ROI, how can you prove that Christ founded your church? Where can we find that in History, the bible, and in your doctrines?

 

[atenciom]

Aris:

Atenciom

Martin,

I didn’t insert Mary and the Saints.

ROI’s theory is that the Catholic Church is not the same as the Church that Christ established.

And he gave three aspects of our Faith that he said are not biblical.

Praying to Mary
Infant Baptism
and baptism by sprinkling

The thing is there should be an exchange of ideas and evidences. We give him proof of what he asks and he should give us his proof of what we ask.

Everybody should be able to examine the validity of the proofs presented of lineage, otherwise this would be a one way discussion.

I am still waiting for ROI’s proof. I agree let’s stick to the topic. Said in another way

ROI, how can you prove that Christ founded your church? Where can we find that in History, the bible, and in your doctrines?

I understand, Aris. It’s just that I have worked hard here to stay one one topic. It just makes things easier. If ROI wants to do two topics at a time, then more power to him. But, I’ve been there and it’s no fun.

But bringing up those three topics is just madness. They are all big cans of worms in and of themselves. And besides, they rely on the concept of authority which is what we’re talking about.

But if you want him to show Jesus founded his church AT THE SAME TIME that I’m (or we’re) showing him how Jesus founded our church, I supposed they are related. But I still think it’ll just cause confusion.

But that’s just me,
Martin

PS Rod, It’s late right now. I’ll get to your post tomorrow morn (Tues)

 

[atenciom]

rod of iron:

What I mean is that other people on this forum have quoted verses of scripture that they believe prove the primacy of Peter. Yet, when I look at those scriptures, I feel I really need to stretch the verses to get them to prove that primacy.

I have been told that since Peter is often mentioned first when the names of the apostles are listed, that this proves his primacy. This could be, but it does not necessarily mean that he had primacy. Have you ever been to a meeting or a get-together where one of the people speak more than the others at that gathering? If you were asked by someone to name the people at the gathering, you might very well mention the one who spoke the most first, and then list others that you can remember. With the frequency that Peter opened his mouth, I am sure that he would be remembered and most often mentioned first. This may not be the case, but it is just as likely as the idea that Peter had primacy.

I have also been offered verses where Jesus is speaking to Peter. Because of what Jesus says to Peter, the Catholics here have tried to convince me that Jesus was giving Peter primacy. But I do not interpret those scriptures in that way.

I have not found a place in the Bible where Jesus directly tells Peter that Peter would be the leader of the whole church and the apostles after Jesus ascended. You can say that Jesus did pass on the leadership of the church to Peter, but it would only be that way based on the interpretation that the Catholic church has accepted. Yet, it is only an interpretation, and not necessarily correct.

In lieu of additional post-apostolic public revelation, which the Catholic church rejects, there is no way to show for sure whether or not Peter had primacy, if the Bible does not directly say that he did. That is what I mean.

NOTE: RCC = Roman Catholic Church

Okay, I understand what you’re saying. You mentioned two scriptures groups that were quoted to you:

-The Peter-is-listed-first verses
-The Jesus-says-certain-things-to-Peter verses

There are about 10-15 other Peter-Primacy groups of scriptures (that have probably been quoted to you already at one time or another). What you should note is, except for maybe one or two groups, any one of these (by itself) doesn’t PROVE the primacy of Peter. We catholics add all the groups together to get a full picture. For example:

Except twice, being listed first in the bible may not be much by itself but being listed first:
-In a jewish culture AND
-Getting a name change and a set of keys AND
-In a jewish culture AND
-Jesus saying certain special things that he didn’t say to others AND
-Peter always speaking up AND
-Peter being a screw-up (and a big one at that!) AND
-No one telling him to be quiet because he is a screw-up AND
-Etc

Do you understand what I mean? What I listed above isn’t all of the concepts that are in the bible. And I’m sure you may have a rebuttal to any one of them which probably would boil down to “That doesn’t neccessarily mean that. It can means this.”

What I’m asking is that you appreciate the merit of adding all these ideas together to form one coherent concept.

Normally, if you could completely and utterly destroy every part of a concept, then the whole of a concept would be null. But, I think, that if we honestly examine the catholic and/or historical interpretation of each part, at best, we could only say, “Well that way is possible but it could be this other way…”

If you add a bunch of possibles together you get, I would think, a plausible and maybe even a (very) probable because every possible is consistent with and supports the others. If we go one step further, we could add up the possibles of your faith (RLDS?), would that percentage surpass the sum of the possibles of the RCC? We would have to ask one more question: Do any of the RCC possibles nullify any of the RLDS possibles?

Are you open to this line of thinking?

Your thoughts,
Martin

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

Are you open to this line of thinking?

Sure. But I cannot promise you that I will be persuaded over to the way that you believe.

 

[atenciom]

rod of iron:

Sure. But I cannot promise you that I will be persuaded over to the way that you believe.

Excellent! I don’t expect you to be persuaded. Only to understand. (and maybe not compare the RCC position to something that is unstable as a house of cards in the future ) (although it is true that the RCC relies VERY heavily on authority, the authority, you will find, is not as unstable as some people have said)

Okay it will take a little time to gen up all the ideas that can be combined. I won’t provide any scripture references since you probably have those a million times over. If you have any questions or want a scripture reference on a point, Lemme know.

Also, I have a busy day at work tomorrow (wed) and I MAY not be able to get to it on Wed but for sure, Thurs morning.

You da man! :bowdown2:
Martin

 

[atenciom]

Here are some points. ANYONE: If I missed any, please throw in:

-Peter is mentioned 195 times (2nd, 3rd, and 4th place is 27, 24, 17 times respectively)
-Peter walks on water
-Jesus pays taxes for him and Peter and no one else
-Pharisees come to Peter regarding Jesus
-Peter gets a name change
-Peter gets keys
-Peter speaks a lot
-Peter says to replace Judas and there is no definite
compulsion to so
-Peter first speaks at Council of Jerusalem and everyone goes silent afterwards. (then James figures out a solution to problem)
-Peter performs first miracle after Jesus leaves
-Peter gives first sermon after Jesus leaves
-Jesus says “stregthen your bros (apostles) if they go down”
-Jesus says “feed my lambs, feed my sheep, feed my
lambs”
-After ressurection, angel refers to specifically Peter
-When apostles are mentioned in a group, it’s usually,
“Peter and the twelve”
-Jesus preaches from Peter’s boat (need to do more research on this first)
-Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” (need to do more research-possibly Peter’s personal conversations with Jesus were important enough to record in a handwritten document)
-When Paul first met w/apostles, he stayed with Peter In Jerusalem for two weeks even thoughJames is the bishop of Jerusalem
-Peter first gives order for no circumcision for salvation
-When Peter and John caught and questioned, Peter
speaks from HS
-No one back then protested the primacy of Peter (including Paul)
-Not neccessary to prove peter is boss if no one contests

NOTE: All this is done in a in jewish culture. (this matters)

-Peter is a screw up*
-Peter is not the oldest apostle*
-Peter is not the Youngest apostle*
-Peter was not the first to be summoned*
-Peter is uneducated.*

*=If the opposites were true, then it would be good reason why Peter is so prominent in scripture.

Please add all this together and tell me what you think,
Martin

 

[steve_b]

rod of iron:

The Catholic

The frequency of the mention of the name of Peter does not prove that he was greater than the other 11. This just proves that Peter was an extrovert. He was always opening his mouth, and most the time, saying something foolish. When Jesus was transfigured, Peter had no idea why Moses and Elijah were on the mountain, too. If you talk more than everyone else, and if most of your statements are foolish or ridiculous, you will be mentioned quite a bit by others, too.

Jesus gave Peter alone the keys to the kingdom of God. And because Jesus said He does only what He sees the Father doing, that means Peter is who the Father wanted as head of the Church. That makes Peter the prime minister and leader of the Church that Jesus will build on him. No more needs to be said.
rod of iron:

This verse does not say that Peter would strengthen his brethren. Rather, it shows where Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren. Peter still had his agency. In the preceding verse, Jesus spoke of Satan’s desire to have Peter. But Jesus, because He prayed for Peter, spoke of a time when Peter would be converted. Why would Jesus speak of Peter being converted, unless Peter had not yet been converted to the truth? This verse does not represent Christ’s favoritism for Peter. Instead, Jesus is still working on Peter to persuade him into being converted.

1. Jesus said Satan wanted to test all the apostles. The Greek word for “you” there is plural. Then Jesus changes tense. He then says but I have prayed for “you” singular [Peter], that your faith will not fail.
2. Jesus clearly is singling out Peter for special blessings as head of the Church and holder of the keys.
3. And when the test is over, Peter is to turn and strengthen all the apostles as the leader would be expected to do.

rod of iron:

The head shepherd? What are you talking about? Peter had denied Christ three times. Because of this, Jesus was making a point when He asked Peter if he loved Him. Jesus asked once for each time Peter had denied Him. Jesus was trying to bring Peter up to par with the other Apostles who hadn’t denied Him. Obviously, Peter had not yet been fully converted to the truth. For you to claim that Jesus named Peter as His head shepherd is completely alien to the passage of scripture you quoted.

This is pure eisogesis. Read the text.

Jesus asks Peter, in front of all the apostles, do you love me more than THESE?

1. Feed [bosko] my sheep
2. Rule [poimaino] my lambs
3. Feed [bosko] my sheep

A nice reminder to all, including the readers of scripture 2000 years later, that Jesus has selected Peter to be head of the Church that He will build on Peter. And because His kingdom will have no end, a successor to Peter’s chair is guranteed!
rod of iron:

You have no evidence that Peter led these meetings. He spoke in these meetings, but this does not mean that he led the meetings. In Acts 15, at the council in Jerusalem, Peter did speak, but he was answered by James. This would indicate the James led the meeting. I don’t definitively see in any of the other meetings where Peter was the leader.

When Peter stood up, all fell silent. James then validated what Peter said.

 

[steve_b]

rod of iron:

Catholics just need to get over the idea that they are the only church that can trace back their history 2000 years. This misconception is what leads them to the incorrect conclusion that they are not a denominaton.

IF YOU ARE A LUTHERAN, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

**IF YOU BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 A.D., **

IF YOU ARE A PRESBYTERIAN, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560 A.D…
IF YOU ARE An EPISCOPALIAN, your religion was an offshoot of THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies in the 17th Century A.D…

IF YOU ARE A CONGREGATIONALIST, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582 A.D…

IF YOUR ARE A METHODIST, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744 A.D…

IF YOU ARE A UNITARIAN, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1744 A.D…

IF YOU ARE A MORMON (Latter Day Saints) Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829 A.D…

IF YOUR ARE BAPTIST, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605 A.D…

IF YOU ARE DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628 A.D…

IF YOU WORSHIP WITH THE SALVATION ARMY, your sect began with William Booth in London, England in 1865 A.D…

IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST, you look to 1879 A.D. as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

IF YOU BELONG TO one of the religious organizations know as “CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE,” “PENTECOSTAL GOSPEL,” “HOLINESS CHURCH,” “PILGRIM HOLINESS CHURCH,” “JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES,” your religion is one of hundreds of new sects founded by men within THE PAST 100 YEARS!

IF YOU ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church. All the other churches listed above are not CREATED BY JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES!

 

[steve_b]

rod of iron:

I never said that Peter being in Rome was an indisputable fact. The Catholic Encyclopedia claimed that. I figure that if this is an indisputable fact, there must be indisputable evidence to support this claim. Is it wrong for me to ask how this indisputable fact was proven?

Start with Ignatius, who was a hearer of John. And work your way through history. These quotes come from the East and West.

catholic.com/library/peter_roman_residency.asp

 

[atenciom]

Rod of Iron: I was hoping to hear something from you in a couple of days, but I have seen no posts from you.

I hope that you aren’t writing a rebuttal to ALL of what I had written. That would take forever to write and to read and it would be a chore to respond to.

I ask that you address one item at a time. PLEASE!

Martin

 

[rod_of_iron]

Rod of Iron: I was hoping to hear something from you in a couple of days, but I have seen no posts from you.

I hope that you aren’t writing a rebuttal to ALL of what I had written. That would take forever to write and to read and it would be a chore to respond to.

I ask that you address one item at a time. PLEASE!

Martin

Sorry, Martin. I haven’t been using the computer very much the last 2 days. But I will try to reply to the points your have presented, in my next post.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

Here are some points. ANYONE: If I missed any, please throw in:

-Peter is mentioned 195 times (2nd, 3rd, and 4th place is 27, 24, 17 times respectively)

When I did a search for Peter’s name in the Bible, I found that he is mentioned in 158 verses. Perhaps, you have found verses that mention his name more than once. Anyways, Peter is mentioned up through Acts 15, but is never mentioned again in Acts after chapter 15. Therefore, if frequent mention of Peter’s name means that he was the leader of the apostles, then after Acts 15, the total absence of his name in that book would mean that he was not the leader any longer. Also, the omission of his name after chapter 15 would suggest that Peter was no longer important in the mission of the apostles. Do you want to base Peter’s primacy only upon how frequently we find his name in the Bible? If so, this would mean that Peter no longer had primacy after Acts 15.

atenciom:

-Peter walks on water

How is this an indication that Peter had primacy? All this feat by Peter shows is that Peter exercised enough faith to walk upon water, and that we can do likewise if we exercise that same faith. Further, it shows that if we keep our eyes upon Jesus, we can do wonders. When Peter took his eyes away from Jesus and looked at the turbulent sea, it was then that he began to sink. This account of Peter demonstrates an example of what we can do if we trust in Jesus and keep our eyes upon Him.

atenciom:

-Jesus pays taxes for him and Peter and no one else

Where did this happen? I searched the New Testament for this point of yours, and I failed to find it. Where is it?

I will pause here and wait for you to address these three issues, before I move onward.

 

[atenciom]

rod of iron:

When I did a search for Peter’s name in the Bible, I found that he is mentioned in 158 verses. Perhaps, you have found verses that mention his name more than once. Anyways, Peter is mentioned up through Acts 15, but is never mentioned again in Acts after chapter 15. Therefore, if frequent mention of Peter’s name means that he was the leader of the apostles, then after Acts 15, the total absence of his name in that book would mean that he was not the leader any longer. Also, the omission of his name after chapter 15 would suggest that Peter was no longer important in the mission of the apostles. Do you want to base Peter’s primacy only upon how frequently we find his name in the Bible? If so, this would mean that Peter no longer had primacy after Acts 15.

How is this an indication that Peter had primacy? All this feat by Peter shows is that Peter exercised enough faith to walk upon water, and that we can do likewise if we exercise that same faith. Further, it shows that if we keep our eyes upon Jesus, we can do wonders. When Peter took his eyes away from Jesus and looked at the turbulent sea, it was then that he began to sink. This account of Peter demonstrates an example of what we can do if we trust in Jesus and keep our eyes upon Him.

Where did this happen? I searched the New Testament for this point of yours, and I failed to find it. Where is it?

I will pause here and wait for you to address these three issues, before I move onward.

Rod,
ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES PETER IS MENTIONED: remember, I’m not counting the number of times the word Peter is mentioned, I’m counting the number of time the person Peter is mentioned. So if Peter is mentioned 158 times, the word Simon is mentioned 70 times, subtract out the other ‘Simons’ and the “Simon Peter’s”, you should get the number I originally quoted (give or take). Either way, the number is substantially higher than the second place apostle and of course all the other apostles combined.
rod of iron:

Do you want to base Peter’s primacy only upon how frequently we find his name in the Bible?

Again I say to you, I don’t base Peter’s primacy on this fact alone. We catholics add up all those facts to get a complete picture.

ON THE MEANING OF PETER WALKING ON WATER: Again, there can be whatever lessons embedded in this text. But that lesson could’ve been taught though any of Jesus’ miracles with any person or apostle. The Holy Spirit chose Peter to make this point. I could easily claim that this verse teaches that Jesus will help Peter (and therefore his successors, if there are successors) when they begin to “sink”. I won’t make that claim because that’s not my point. My point is that scripture chooses Peter an overwhelmingly amount of times to make points.

ON WHERE DID JESUS PAY TAXES FOR PETER: Mat 17:24-27. Again, you can probably explain away this one instance and interpret it an alternate way. But when you put all the instances together, the bible practically begs you to interpret it the Pro-Peter way.

ON THE CEASING OF MENTIONING PETER AFTER ACTS 15 MEANS ANYTHING: No it doesn’t. Because of all the combined importance that is put on him whereever he is mentioned. Remember, the bible doesn’t have to mention him everywhere. In fact, there are times when he should not be mentioned: when he is not the subject or whether his presence is needed or not.

Again, the key (no pun intended) is to combine all the reference together to form one cogent idea that Peter is important and has primacy.

Martin

 

[RBushlow]

rod of iron:

Maria,

If you can trace the Catholic church from Pentecost until today, why don’t you do it? What doesn’t any of the Catholic church members on this forum do it? All I see are claims that this can be done. I have not yet seen it done. Put your money where your mouth is.

Let’s try direct Apostolic Succession for starters. Can you cite the church leaders of your church from the 1st century to the present day?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Shibboleth:

Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, Catholic,… - we are all from the singular body of the church catholic created by Jesus. QUOTE]

Yes, we are all FROM the singular body of the Church created by Jesus. But are we all IN that very same, Jesus created church regardless of what we believe?

---

If so, how can that be when truth cannot contradict itself yet there are conflicting and contradictory truths held among these different groups?

---

If not…well…what then?

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

ON THE NUMBER OF TIMES PETER IS MENTIONED: remember, I’m not counting the number of times the word Peter is mentioned, I’m counting the number of time the person Peter is mentioned. So if Peter is mentioned 158 times, the word Simon is mentioned 70 times, subtract out the other ‘Simons’ and the “Simon Peter’s”, you should get the number I originally quoted (give or take). Either way, the number is substantially higher than the second place apostle and of course all the other apostles combined.

I still do not see how frequent mention of a name is important to this claim of the Catholic church that Peter had primacy. Apparently, Peter was more memorable to the writers of the gospels than the other twelve were. Do you believe that everything said or done during the 3+ years that the apostles spent with Jesus were written down in the Bible? While examining the frequency in which Peter’s name is found in the New Testament, you would have me believe that Peter did everything, and all the rest of the apostles just stood around and watched him. I doubt very much that this was the case.

atenciom:

Again I say to you, I don’t base Peter’s primacy on this fact alone. We catholics add up all those facts to get a complete picture.

I find this fact to be rather trivial. It just shows that the writers were partial to Peter or more aware of his activities than the activities of the others. I do not find any relevance in this fact at all.

atenciom:

ON THE MEANING OF PETER WALKING ON WATER: Again, there can be whatever lessons embedded in this text. But that lesson could’ve been taught though any of Jesus’ miracles with any person or apostle. The Holy Spirit chose Peter to make this point. I could easily claim that this verse teaches that Jesus will help Peter (and therefore his successors, if there are successors) when they begin to “sink”. I won’t make that claim because that’s not my point. My point is that scripture chooses Peter an overwhelmingly amount of times to make points.

You say that the Holy Spirit chose Peter. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit lifted Peter up and forced him out of the boat to walk toward Jesus?

Peter was the type of person that would act before thinking. This is why he frequently did or said the wrong thing. Peter got out of the boat without thinking, because he knew his Savior was walking toward him. In a way, Peter getting out of the boat was like Wile E. Coyote running off the side of the cliff and not falling until he looked down and realizing he was standing in mid air. Peter, without thinking, left the safety of the boat and began to walk upon the water. He did not realize that he was walking on water until he removed his eyes from Jesus. You can derive any lesson you want from this incident, but the details of this incident are easily discerned.

Peter stepped out onto the water without thinking first. He was all right until he removed his eyes from Jesus. Once he did, he fell into the water. This incident just shows another time when Peter acted before considering the facts first.

(continued …)

 

[rod_of_iron]

atenciom:

ON WHERE DID JESUS PAY TAXES FOR PETER: Mat 17:24-27. Again, you can probably explain away this one instance and interpret it an alternate way. But when you put all the instances together, the bible practically begs you to interpret it the Pro-Peter way.

Actually, Peter paid the tribute for himself and Jesus. Jesus did not pay the tribute. But the money that Peter paid was not his money or Jesus’ money. The money came from the mouth of a fish. Jesus knew where to find the money. How? Did Jesus put the money into the fish’s mouth? Or did Jesus, through the spirit of prophecy, know where Peter was going to find the money? I don’t know if Jesus ever carried money with him, so how could He pay taxes? You are just adding your interpretation to this incident to make it say what you want it to say.

Further, this incident occurred in Capernaum. Even though the other disciples probably went to Capernaum with Jesus and Peter, the others are not mentioned at this time. It would seem that only Peter and Jesus were present at the time that those who were collecting tribute came to Peter. They came to Peter to ask if his master paid tribute. They did not ask if Peter paid tribute. Therefore, it would seem as if the tribute was paid more for Jesus than Peter. Does this mean that Jesus was actually paying tribute? No, this is why Peter did not pay with his own money. Jesus was trying to keep from offending these people. If Jesus would have offended them, they would have probably caused trouble for Him. Jesus was obviously trying to lay low at that time. Anyways, Peter paid the tribute, not Jesus.

atenciom:

ON THE CEASING OF MENTIONING PETER AFTER ACTS 15 MEANS ANYTHING: No it doesn’t. Because of all the combined importance that is put on him whereever he is mentioned. Remember, the bible doesn’t have to mention him everywhere. In fact, there are times when he should not be mentioned: when he is not the subject or whether his presence is needed or not.

The absence of Peter’s name after Acts 15 does not mean anything??? But the frequent mention of his name up to Acts 15 does mean something??? That makes no sense. If Peter being mentioned often is an important factor to prove he had primacy, then the opposite would also be true. The opposite is that the absence of his name after Acts 15 would prove that he no longer had primacy, if he ever did in the first place. You cannot have both of these pointing to his primacy. If frequent mention of Peter’s name proves primacy, then the absence of his name must prove he did not have primacy from that point onward. Otherwise, this point of yours would not be a fair test of primacy.