There are a number of biblical texts that have been rejected by scholars as later additions to the text. This seems to be a legitimate attitude when there is a strong basis for it, such as that the passage is missing from the earliest manuscripts. It's also personally convenient if the passage is theologically controversial or politically incorrect, such as Paul's supposed writings against women speaking in church, or the famous [Johannine Comma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma) . But what if it is a beloved scripture, such as the story of the [Woman Taken in Adultery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery) , which apparently does not start appearing into relatively late in the manuscript tradition. Or, in the case of 1 Cor. 13, what if one becomes convinced that it is not actually a writing of Paul but that a later editor has inserted it. (See [this question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/99098/is-i-cor-13-an-insertion-by-a-later-editor) for details.) Does the fact that a beloved scripture was not part of the original text mean that it is not holy scripture?

The 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 2214 §1 states: >The Church has the native and proper right, independent of any human authority, to coerce those offenders subject to her with both spiritual and temporal penalties. This says "The Church", but §2 goes on to specify "Bishops and other Ordinaries". A bishop, when consecrated, is given the power to teach, govern, and sanctify those in his diocese; but what authority does a simple parish priest have over his parishioners? In other words, what can a parish priest command or forbid his parishioners to do? Can he coerce his parishioners with punishments, or is this power only reserved to bishops?

### Motivation of the question I find out that many debates about "Scripture", "tradition", and "authority" result in **cross talk** because each of the 3 main branches don't sufficiently define what they mean by those 3 key terms. At the same time all 3 main branches acknowledge much commonality, which more or less coalesce under the banner of "rule of faith", "apostolic tradition", or "Apostle's Creed". In the spirit of **Peacemaking** (Matt 5:9), this question asks for VERY PRECISE **common core** definition of "tradition" **that all 3 branches can *first* AGREE**. Only then can each branch propose: 1. their own meaning of "tradition" (which has to be related precisely with the common definition) 1. their own precise location of authority and its relationship to tradition and Scripture ### Evidence of the existence of a common core "tradition" in all 3 branches 1. Eastern Orthodox Churches can say that their authority is centered on the relatively "frozen" **"Holy Tradition"** which includes BOTH Scripture and Tradition (defined by EO as an extension of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q). "Tradition" in EO's extended sense (which includes all non-Scripture parts of the Holy Tradition) is of equal importance to Scripture, both exerting equal authority to believers. This extended EO "Tradition" includes proper interpretation of Scripture. 1. The Roman Catholic Church can say that their authority is centered on the **Magisterium** who interprets the current meaning and the current application of BOTH Scripture and "Tradition" (defined by RC as an extension of the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q). 1. Protestantism can say that their authority is centered on **Scripture** (said by *sola scriptura* as the *norm*, but not the *exclusion*, of everything else), but they have to account for *how the various interpretations are related* to the common core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. I realize this may require a paradigm shift for Protestants, but if we are honest: - EACH interpretation **IS** a part of a denomination's "tradition" **which includes** a certain *orthodox* interpretation that ALL 3 main branches agree to (thus giving substance to the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q), that would yield an agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity for instance (let's not worry about the *filioque* here), and on the majority of the propositions in the Apostle's Creed. - This common core definition of "tradition" has a Biblical basis in 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and Jude 1:3 (see Note #2 below). - Although some Protestants claim that "it's obvious" (under the banner of perspicuity) that John 1:1 implies the pre-existence of Christ, this interpretation (that was subsequently fought over until today) counts as part of the common core "tradition" asked for in this Q, which **can even be argued** to be included in the "tradition" referred to by the 3 verses above. ### Ways to answer the question 1. For RC and EO, specify a *criteria* on HOW to **delimit** the common core subset out of their respective (more expansive) Traditions. On the other hand, Protestants can come up with a Biblical exegesis of ALL verses that imply the existence of an apostolic "tradition" (such as 3 verses mentioned above) and specify a *criteria* to **populate "tradition"** so that we know what the apostles meant by "tradition" in those verses. 1. For each branch, list the common interpretation / common doctrines to populate the common core definition of "tradition". Examples: the Chalcedon definition of the dual nature of Christ, the necessity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, justification by grace only, Pre-existence of Christ, etc. 1. Cite elements of statement of faith from an ecumenical Christian organization (such as World Council of Churches). 1. List common doctrines in each branch's confessions / documents, even if you have to notate slight differences such as how each branch deals with Original Sin, which was clearly articulated for the first time by Augustine and since then *handed down* to us today (thus part of "tradition" by definition) with minor variations. 1. List common features of all 3 branches' theology. For example we can argue that Divine Simplicity ***is*** a tradition, so are Resurrection of the Body and how one's decision *for* or *against* God is frozen at death. Or cite books such as C.S. Lewis's *Mere Christianity*. 1. Etc. (Come up with your own strategy so that the definition is agreeable by all 3 branches) ### NOTES 1. I don't want debate on the various canons. For the purpose of this question, it's already a given that each branch has their own canon. What matters is Scripture's relationship to the common definition of "tradition". 1. "tradition" as a lexical definition means "that which is handed over"; but it is too general and too vague to explicate - what 1 Cor 11:2 refers to ("maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you") - what Jude 1:3 refers to as what was "delivered to the saints" - what 2 Thess 2:15 means by "traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" all 3 verses are Biblical hint to the **existence** of the **common** core definition of "tradition" asked for in this Q. On the other extreme, definitions of "tradition" can include accretions since the writing of the Book of Revelation. 1. WARNING: Answers which do not include common *core* definition of "tradition" *ACCEPTABLE* to all 3 branches will be rejected. 1. The answer's own proposal of how the common *core* definition of "tradition" relates to Authority and to Scripture can be added as a bonus. I prefer that the answer attempts to isolate the common core of "authority" *first* before fleshing out the branch's more extended definition of "authority".

Within Protestantism there is no universal definition of theology or how to understand the Bible: Anglicans have one definition, Lutherans another, Calvinists another, (insert name here), etc. So **upon what basis** can Protestants insist that some teaching contradicts the Bible objectively, and not only according to their own personal understanding of the Bible (which most would admit could be wrong)? And if all you have is your personal interpretation, upon what basis does anyone call anything a heresy, and those who hold it "heretics"? One has to be surer than 'I interpret it this way' in order to start condemning contrary interpretations with any note of seriousness. ----------------------- I've heard a lot responses things like 'His sheep hear His voice,' which in the first place is able to be claimed by two contradictory sides of a matter and not be falsifiable (it essentially is saying 'well, God knows who's right, and I think it's me!'), and secondly, circularly assumes that 'His sheep hear His voice' is to be interpreted specifically in a way which means that it pertains to the interpretation of the Bible. Similar are claims of having the 'personal guidance of the Holy Spirit,' which is similar or identical to the argument above. But again, this, while helpful to someone personally, doesn't provide a basis for say, calling others heretics based on that interpretation. Something that the New Testament says is possible. Worst of all, I've even heard things like 'I don't even interpret the Bible,' ('I skip the stage where I have to account for my interpretation objectively altogether') which is impressive ... in a bad way. None of these are impressive to me, and they do not withstand the most basic scrutiny. Can any Protestant provide a sola scriptura epistemology which *doesn't* rely on such dubious, unfalsifiable arguments?

Like almost all churches, the Church of England and even more the wider Anglican Communion is struggling to come to terms with the vocal and growing minority of, in their own terms, "non-heteronormative" people, within the church as well as within the wider society. This concerns gender-fluidity/changes as well as homosexuality. The issue is contentious within and between the congregations. This question is motivated by [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104499/how-can-anglican-clergy-be-suspended-without-pay-for-teaching-what-the-anglica?noredirect=1#comment300641_104499) : What should an Anglican priest do who cannot in good conscience represent the more libertarian stance of their church regarding the fairly broad complex of sexual identity, gender fluidity, homosexuality etc. In one specific case cited, a priest was put on leave after opposing in a sermon what he perceived as LGBT indoctrination bordering on coercion by a sexual education charity at a primary school. The OP of that question perceived a mismatch between the more conservative official doctrine of the Church as opposed to their more libertarian actions. The question claimed that the priest was "upholding the Church of England’s doctrinal stance". I tried to find out what that official stance might be. There is a long Wikipedia page about the wider Anglican community's [struggle to deal with homosexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Anglican_Communion) , and it is clear that the *factual* opinion spectrum, even just on this relatively narrow topic, is very wide. But what is the *official* doctrine? I read passages of the [Book of Common Prayer](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer) , "a key source for its doctrine": - The [ordination vow](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/ordaining-and-consecrating-0) did not seem to contain anything that directly would compel a priest to oppose LGBT... advertising. - There is a [enumerated list of relatives that must not marry](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/table-kindred-and-affinity) ; homosexuality is not mentioned there, most likely because it didn't cross anybody's mind. - [The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-solemnization-matrimony) talks about man and woman respectively husband and wife throughout. Whether the absence of same-sex marriage is to be taken as a prohibition or whether it simply didn't cross anybody's mind is, I suppose, up to debate. Is there more in the official, binding doctrine that would compel a priest to resist his superiors in LGBT... issues as a matter of doctrinal principle?

A governor's job is to appoint other officials to various offices, and their notary makes such things official. Writing in three languages would avoid the need to agree on one language in which to write the affidavit notarizing that Jesus was King of the Jews. Did writing "king of the Jews" on the sign hung above Jesus when He was crucified serve to officially designate Jesus as such?

The Bible tells us that Jesus emptied himself and set aside his heavenly glory and submitted himself to the will of his Father (God). In order to do the will of his Father (God) who sent him, and to obey Him, Jesus was in a lower position to that of God the Father. What are the theological implications of this change in position, and was it permanent? I am looking for a biblical explanation from a Reformed Protestant position.

According to [*Index of Prohibited Books*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum) , all of the works of Thomas Hobbes were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in the year 1649. Thomas Hobbes wrote many more books after 1649, including his magum opos, *Leviathan,* which was published in 1651. (Hobbes died in 1679.) QUESTION: Does the aforementioned list really contain *all* of the works of Hobbes, or just those, perhaps, that were published by 1649? Is it possible that when the list displayed by the above Wiki link indicates "all books," it really means the author himself; e.g., *David Hume* who died after the year of of his books were banned? In the case of Hobbes, I am most interested in determining whether or not his *Leviathan* was actually banned. Thank you.

I know that the term *Magisterium* is relatively recent---it refers to the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church. It seems that full length books (a few hundred pages or more) devoted to this topic are relatively rare; and moreover, I have not been able to find a single one written (in English) that is in the public domain in the United States. There are some fairly recent ones such as [*Magisterial Authority*](https://www.amazon.com/Magisterial-Authority-Fr-Chad-Ripperger/dp/1503022420/ref=pd_sim_d_sccl_2_1/133-7348727-5417360?pd_rd_w=JEoWE&content-id=amzn1.sym.fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_p=fc475966-e837-48fc-9ed0-f4ca6ae9337b&pf_rd_r=N6WM7AFHKA4RPVC1K6F0&pd_rd_wg=CW6eo&pd_rd_r=68188b91-fd2c-48ac-981f-3c479a3d31da&pd_rd_i=1503022420&psc=1) by Fr. Ripperger, but it only contains 62 pages. QUESTION: Can anyone point me to a book(s) devoted to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that was (were) published in English prior to 1929? It seems to me that there should be some, but I have not yet discovered any. Thank you.

In **Genesis 2:2-3** we are told: > **2** And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. > **3** And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Limiting the scope of the question — setting aside what it means that the seventh day of the week was "blessed" and "sanctified" by God — and focusing narrowly on the "longitudinal" impact of these verses, what is the biblically sound interpretation? I was able to think of three possible options here (if you can think of another, please include it in your answer): 1. the **only** day that was blessed was the actual “historical” first Sabbath (with no other Sabbaths meant to enjoy the blessing that was given to that original /first and only/ seventh day); 2. every subsequent seventh day was blessed from the original Sabbath **until** a later point in time when that blessing was **removed** or **modified** by another divine decree (e.g., transferred to another day or limited in its scope to the ethnic Jews). 3. **all** subsequent Sabbaths were blessed; What biblically based arguments do the various denominations give for their interpretation of this scripture?

Catholics and some Protestants believe that priests/pastors can forgive sin, usually citing John 20:23 as justification. For example, one variant of the Anglican liturgy has the Pastor make the following pronouncement: > By the authority of Christ given to the Church I absolve you from your sins Another, similar form: > By [Christ's] authority committed to me, I absolve you from all your sins Other Protestants believe that John 20:23 only applied to the original Apostles and would apparently object to the above. (I should note that my understanding is that Protestants, and perhaps even Roman Catholics, do agree that pastors/priests aren't *themselves* able to absolve sin, but merely serve as "intermediaries" of Christ to do so. Indeed, the specifics of the above clearly call this out.) Now, this discussion is *usually* entangled with the Roman Catholic belief in the Apostolic Succession. However, as I understand it, all Protestants reject the Succession. On what grounds, therefore, do (some) Protestants accept John 20:23 as applying to all called and ordained ministers? (In other words, what do those Protestants who side with Roman Catholics on the matter of the priestly/pastoral ability to deliver or withhold forgiveness respond to those who deny such ability?) Related reading: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/91388 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89608 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/13841 - [Does John 20:23 mean that Catholic priests can forgive sins?](https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/does-john-2023-mean-that-catholic-priests-can-forgive-sins/)

At Luke 4:16-17 we read: " When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him...." I would like to know what the relevance of a synagogue in day-to-day life of an average Jew was; and whether Jesus had formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue. What does the Catholic tell us on the subject ?

**I am seeking a complete and authoritative explanation of this issue.** Who presides at Sacrament meeting (common Sunday services) when the bishop of a ward (pastor of a local congregation) is unavailable? There are several circumstances that should be considered when answering this question. The best answer will cite both the handbook of instructions and scripture to justify the explanation. Linking back to Church resources is appreciated. * **When any higher authority is easily accessible and...** * When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected. * **When all higher authorities are also unavailable and...** * When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected. *A bonus would be an explanation of what priesthood keys (or priesthood authority) is NOT available when any or all of these circumstances take place. As an example (and as a hint), if the bishop and all higher authorities are unavailable, non-priesthood disciplinary councils cannot be convened.*

What is the Greek word Chrysostom uses for authority? “The blessed Paul did not suffer them even to speak with authority in the church.”

According to [*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*](https://ia800507.us.archive.org/3/items/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma-pdfdrive/Fundamentals%20of%20Catholic%20Dogma%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf) (in reference to John 21:15-17): > "Feed" in ancient and biblical language means, in its application to human beings, rule or govern (cf. Acts 20:28). And Acts 20:28: > Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (*Douay-Rheims*) QUESTION: What are some ancient (or Old Testament) references which demonstrate the linguistic equivalence of the terms "to feed" and "to govern (or rule)"?

1. **It makes someone other than God also have the title of "God".** (Exodus 20:3) There cannot be a capital-G God beneath the capital-G God—only a lowercase god. The capital-G God is the highest authority and source of all things. The Trinity therefore violates the Shema and the 1st Commandment; to worship no other gods but the only true God, who is just one being. 2. **It violates God's headship of authority.** (1 Corinthians 11:3) {Female < Male < Christ < God} is violated by making Jesus equal with Father God, thereby unleashing a domino effect which further results in man becoming equal with Christ, and woman becoming equal with man; a catastrophic annihilation of God's created order. 3. **It destroys the term "only begotten" (monogenes) in Greek.** (John 3:18) In contradiction of correct doctrine that Jesus was created (begotten) by the Father God on Day 1 of creation, Jesus is instead claimed to be co-eternal with the Father, nullifying Christ's terms of "only begotten", "firstborn of creation", and "first of his works of old". In a terrible attempt to explain this off, Trinitarians instead replace it with the illogical term "eternally begotten". "Eternally begotten" is a nonsensical term which is fielded to justify their blasphemous theology and discredit "only begotten" (monogenes in Greek). In recent times, Trinitarian translators have even gone so far as to remove the term "begotten" to leave it as "only Son", in a sinister attempt to hide the fact that Jesus was created by God on Day 1 of Creation as his only-begotten Son. They do this to make Jesus be God and co-eternal alongside God our Father. 4. **It disregards what a mediator is.** (1 Timothy 2:5) A mediator is someone who intercedes between two people. The mediator who intercedes cannot be the person who sent him, or the person he was sent to mediate for, otherwise it is not mediation. Jesus is not God, but the Son of God and Son of Man. God sent his Son to intercede on behalf of humanity to draw out the chosen elect from the foundation of the world. God sent his Son to be our Mediator. Jesus was an immortal god, yet emptied himself and came down into mortal human flesh to intercede on our behalf and save us from sin and the death. 5. **It ignores that God cannot die.** (1 Timothy 1:17) The scriptures make it clear that God cannot die. Jesus died, but God his Father resurrected him from the dead, just as God will resurrect us from the dead if we believe in Him and his Son. Jesus is not God because Jesus died. In fact, Jesus said that God abandoned him while he was dying on the cross. This was to fulfill Christ's mission of taking on the curse of our sin and deserved abandonment from God on our behalf, to save us from this world. 6. **It forgets that God can never be tempted.** (James 1:13) The scriptures also clearly tell us that Jesus was tempted by the devil Satan, but that he did not fall for the temptations. Jesus felt the pangs of temptation, but he fended them off in the Spirit of God. Likewise, we can fend off temptations by remaining in the Spirit of God. The scriptures tell us that God can never be tempted, yet Jesus was tempted on our behalf. Jesus is therefore not God. 7. **It contradicts itself by wrongly stating that an angel is God.** (Psalm 104:4) Jesus was pre-incarnate and post-incarnate as the Chief Angel of God as the only-begotten Son of God. Nevertheless, Trinitarians state that Jesus was God despite admitting that Jesus was the "Angel of the LORD" throughout the Old Testament. The issue is that God is not an angel, and will never be an angel, because angels are created by God, but God is eternal and uncreated. It is certainly true that the Angel of the LORD is the glorified Son of God, but the Angel of the LORD is absolutely not God because he is the mediating angel and viceroy of God's Presence! 8. **It discredits the fact that only God's will alone is accomplished.** (Ephesians 1:11) Jesus plainly told us that he came to do not his own will, but the will of God who sent him. Jesus was teaching us humility when he told us to hold others above ourselves, and to do the will of God alone and not our own will. "Not my will be done, but your will be done". "Let your will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Jesus is not God because Jesus was doing the will of his God, who is our God, and his Father, who is our Father. Only God's will is done, not the will of anyone else. 9. **It disregards that only God is omniscient and nobody else.** (Matthew 24:36) Jesus said that nobody knows the Day or the Hour, neither the Son, but the Father God only. Some take John 16:30 and John 21:17 to mean that Jesus "knows all things", but these passages simply state that Jesus knew everything that was necessary to know about the particular topics at hand, namely love and judgement. Only the Father God is truly omniscient and knows all things, as all things have come from him alone. 10. **It makes God not good despite God being described as only good.** (Mark 10:18) When Jesus was called "good teacher", he responded by rebuking it and saying that nobody is good except God alone. This implies that Jesus is not God, and that he is not truly good, as only his Father God is truly good, because God is the source all things, especially all that is good. Psalm 100:5 says that God is good, forever.

According to sedeprivationism , does a material pope (*papa materialiter*) have temporal authority ?

I realise there are some significant theological differences between LDS, Catholicism and Protestantism, mainly to do with the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. LDS doctrine recognizes Jehovah as the pre-mortal name of Jesus, who was created as a spirit son, before coming to earth as God the Son incarnate. This official [LDS article](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1988/03/comparing-lds-beliefs-with-first-century-christianity?lang=eng) says that after the deaths of Jesus Christ and the Apostles apostasy became widespread and “lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.” I understand that the Church does not accept various creeds from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and that those creeds do not reflect the thinking or beliefs of “the New Testament church”. From this I can only conclude that they are neither Catholic nor Protestant. What then is the foundation for this “New Testament church”? Is it based on the New Testament of the Holy Bible, or is it based on other sources? If it is based on other sources, please name them. Edit: Please note I want the official LDS answer to this question, especially as to the basis of their "New Testament Church".

Here is a simple summary of the purpose of the first six councils: >1. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325) – Affirmed the deity of Christ. The false doctrine of Arianism was rejected and affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. >2. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381) – Clarified the nature of the Holy Spirit and dealt a fatal blow to Arianism. It sharpened the distinctions between the Eastern and Western branches of the church. When the Great Schism occurred centuries later, one of the primary disagreements was the hierarchy of Rome and Constantinople. >3. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s personhood. The false teaching of Nestorianism was repudiated and also denounced (and rejected) Pelagianism and re-affirmed the Nicene Creed. The decision to condemn Nestorianism caused an immediate split in the Eastern Church, creating several splinter groups. Some of these survive today, including the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholicism. >4. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451) – Clarified the teaching concerning Christ’s nature and person, including the “hypostatic union.” The false doctrine of monophysitism was rejected. The Council produced the “Chalcedonian Definition,” which affirms that Christ is “the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man.” >5. SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (553) – Confirmed the conclusions of the first four councils. >6. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (680–681) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s will. I have left out the seventh ecumenical council (the SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA in 787) because it established guidelines for the veneration of images. Some Protestants reject this council, while accepting the Council of Hieria of 754, which rejected the veneration of icons. Do Protestant denominations broadly accept the authority of these councils and agree with the theological views as presented in the first six ecumenical councils? I ask because I read an article that said Protestants recognise the first six, although they do not hold those decrees in the same regard as Catholics. Is there a general acceptance by Protestants of the first six ecumenical councils? Or are some parts rejected by Protestant denominations?

> Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? - 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 It is certain that Cephas, here, is the Apostle Peter (John 1:42). In Paul's chastisement of the Corinthian believer's "contentions" he lists 4 names that they are claiming to be "of". He outright eliminates himself from the list but, if he recommends any name on the list, it is not Cephas (Peter) but Christ. A natural reading of verse 13 looks like this: *Is Christ divided? Was Paul (or Apollos or Cephas) crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul (or Apollos or Cephas)?* How do proponents of the primacy of Peter reckon with Paul apparently placing Peter and Apollos on equal footing here? Why does Paul give no hint of any special status for Peter over either himself or Apollos when attempting to correct divisions in the Church?