Why's Matthew the only book which includes, "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;" if the church is so important?
My point is the question is premised on assumption that something which only gets mentioned once must not be very important, which is false
-
-
Fair enough. But the absence of it in the other gospels indicates it wasn't so important (for lack of a better word).
-
You're reiterating your premise, which I'm insisting holds no water--why is so much unique to John's Gospel? Is John's unimportant?
-
But Mark, Luke and John felt no need to recognize or reaffirm the founding of the church on Peter?
-
No more than Mark, Luke, and Matthew felt no need to recognize Jesus's raising of Lazarus, or washing the disciples' feet, etc...
-
I am only after the legitimacy of the papal claims of legitimacy.
-
Clearly, which is why you're holding it to higher standards than many other things related in the Gospels. But it *is* in the Gospels!
-
That is not what I am doing. The catholic church exalts its legitimacy as true church above many of the other things in the gospels.
-
Nonsense, it can cite its legitimacy in the Gospels, but doesn't exalt that passage above the rest.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There is only one witness to the idea, is what I mean.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.