Yes, really.
I honestly have no idea how one could read Acts and come away with the idea that Peter founded the church of Rome. There was already a church when Paul got there (well after he wrote them an epistle), and the Jews there seem to not have encountered an apostle before (Acts 28).
Oh, I agree he ended up there.
I'd be interested in seeing this alleged proof (elsewhere is fine).
The split between East and West began about the time they were forged, that much is clear. Though there were differences between East and West before then, they weren't worthy of splitting over until Rome demanded that the East conform to it. .
I understand what you meant; I disagree with it. I was just poking you a bit for your poor choice of wording there.
Before admitting it wasn't hard evidence, you made a huge deal about it - just like you're making a huge deal about only Peter explicitly getting keys.
That was not my argument. My argument was that Peter had a history of voicing strong opinions, and not necessarily appropriate ones. In the cultural context, Peter's rebuke of Jesus was shockingly inappropriate.
As unlikely as it may seem to you, my aim is to read the text for what it says, not for what polemical use I can make of it. In my opinion, James stating his decision is easily the most authoritative part of the passage. I have no axe to grind against Peter.
Peter did not make a decision. Peter proffered his strong opinion (I don't think he had any weak ones).
Once Peter has had his say, the 'apostle to the Gentiles' relates his missionary efforts. It's possible that no one spoke up because they dared not go against Peter's authority, but it's also possible (and more likely, IMO) that no other apostle spoke up because no one had a serious disagreement with Peter's statement.
Also, I thought your position was that he 'wasn't' making a claim to authority, in which case, there would have been no reason for the apostles to speak up in the first place, so which argument are you trying to make: Did he make a claim to authority, and the apostles just ignored it because they agreed with him, or did he 'not' make a claim to authority?
You're reading an impressive amount of fantasy into Peter's statement. I quite honestly don't see it as Peter arrogating authority to himself at all; it's just Peter being Peter.
Again, if any of the other authorities had an issue with it, I'm pretty sure that would have shown up in the text.
Peter had no more and no less authority than the other apostles during Jesus' ministry, though he was one of the innermost three. Peter will have no more and no less authority than the other apostles in the Judgment, when the twelve apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the tribes of Israel. Why should Peter have more authority in between? The other apostles were no less 'sent' than Peter was.
I think you're investing too much freight in the keys. The important bit was the authority to bind and loose; the keys are merely symbolic of that. The keys are only mentioned once in the gospels, and only in the connection of binding and loosing. The authority of the apostles to bind and loose, on the other hand, is referred to three times.
Comment