My point is the question is premised on assumption that something which only gets mentioned once must not be very important, which is false
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
Fair enough. But the absence of it in the other gospels indicates it wasn't so important (for lack of a better word).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheLastOgygian
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
But Mark, Luke and John felt no need to recognize or reaffirm the founding of the church on Peter?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheLastOgygian
No more than Mark, Luke, and Matthew felt no need to recognize Jesus's raising of Lazarus, or washing the disciples' feet, etc...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
I am only after the legitimacy of the papal claims of legitimacy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheLastOgygian
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!
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheLastOgygian
Nonsense, it can cite its legitimacy in the Gospels, but doesn't exalt that passage above the rest.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh @TheLastOgygian
The passage in question is how Simon came to be called Peter, yes? Do they not call him Peter in the others? Or the letters?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
How many times would the story of why Simon became Peter need to be related before you'd accept it as canon?
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.